The Impossible

[Davian]

Where did I say that?

And here I am thinking that the contrary to possible is impossible.

Did I misunderstand the point of your OP?

That I do not recall. Enlighten me.

I don't know, but don't bring up an example and then say its my job to define the terms of your example.

Where did I say that?

You asked for what science would say is impossible. I suggested "immaterial consciousness", for the reason that it lacks a positive ontology.

You said, "you must recall that I did provide a definition of "immaterial"", implying that you had both used the term and provided such a definition on this very board.

Have you not used this term? Do you not have that definition?

 

[Resha Caner]

Where did I say that?

Must we do this? In post #89 you said, "You are the one using the term. When you find a scientific explanation of consciousness that leaves the door open for 'immaterial', let me know."

When I pointed out I had not used that term in this thread, but did at one time define it, you noted your unfamiliarity with my definition.

If you don't know what my definition is, what were you challenging when you made your post? Obviously not my view of immaterial. So, it seems the burden is on you to provide the definition of the thing you are challenging as impossible.

 

[Davian]

Must we do this?

Do what? I am only following your lead. Do you concede the other points in my post?

In post #89 you said, "You are the one using the term. When you find a scientific explanation of consciousness that leaves the door open for 'immaterial', let me know."

Which is not what you accused me of saying.

When I pointed out I had not used that term in this thread, but did at one time define it, you noted your unfamiliarity with my definition.

I also noted that you used this term on this board, not this thread. Do you concede that?

If you don't know what my definition is, what were you challenging when you made your post? Obviously not my view of immaterial.

Interesting. With whom's view did you read my post?

So, it seems the burden is on you to provide the definition of the thing you are challenging as impossible.

I already did that. It lacks a positive ontology by definition. How many sides on a "sideless polygon"?

Back to you. Is there something prohibiting you from providing a link to the relevant post with your defintion?

 

[Resha Caner]

Do what? I am only following your lead. Do you concede the other points in my post?

I haven't seen any points made, so there is nothing to concede.

Which is not what you accused me of saying.

There was also post #80: "It is a term that you have used; perhaps you could explain it." If asking me to explain "immaterial" is not a request for definition, then I am truly confused by your use of the English language.

I also noted that you used this term on this board, not this thread. Do you concede that?

How is this relevant if you weren't referring to my definition and didn't ask for it? Regardless, see post #83. I recall a very lengthy discussion about "immaterial". I don't recall using the term "immaterial consciousness", but it is possible I did. You seem to recall that I used it, so maybe you should provide the link.

Interesting. With whom's view did you read my post?

Originally? None. My first response to you came in post #79 where I asked for clarification. Your very next reply (post #80) referred to my usage and said it had no positive ontology. When I challenged you on that, noting that I do have a definition, you said you did not recall it (post #97). I feel no obligation to provide a definition to an issue you raised about something you weren't even aware of. I could randomly pull a word from the dictionary, assume it likely you've used it in the past, apply my own definition, and refute you ... but I think that's called a strawman.

I assumed you were present for this conversation. Why must I repeat it?

Regardless, if you do not recall my definition, what exactly were you challenging with your original post?

I already did that. It lacks a positive ontology by definition. How many sides on a "sideless polygon"?

This? This is your challenge? Fine. I already replied to this in post #83. To say, "The thing we have not defined is impossible," is a meaningless statement. Nothing has been shown impossible by such word games.

If you wish to provide definitions of "immaterial" with which you are familiar, and which you think impossible, feel free to do so.

 

[Upisoft]

What would science say is impossible?

Earth suddenly stopping rotating around the Sun and just sitting there in space...

 

[Resha Caner]

Earth suddenly stopping rotating around the Sun and just sitting there in space...

Since I've gotten several, "Oh no, I'm not referring to that Bible passage" replies, I'll not make that assumption again. Working strictly from what you posted, this is quite possible given the proper application of forces to the Earth - though what that might do to life on Earth is a different matter.

And, of course, "just sitting there" implies a reference frame of some sort. I don't want to assume which you mean. Regardless, changing the orbit of Earth is possible.

 

[Upisoft]

Since I've gotten several, "Oh no, I'm not referring to that Bible passage" replies, I'll not make that assumption again. Working strictly from what you posted, this is quite possible given the proper application of forces to the Earth - though what that might do to life on Earth is a different matter.

And, of course, "just sitting there" implies a reference frame of some sort. I don't want to assume which you mean. Regardless, changing the orbit of Earth is possible.

The keyword was "suddenly". And you can choose any inertial reference frame.

 

[Resha Caner]

The keyword was "suddenly". And you can choose any inertial reference frame.

Shrug. How long is suddenly? F = ma. A larger force will accomplish it in a shorter time.

 

[Loudmouth]

I didn't say we could determine they are the same. I said we must assume they are the same.

Why must we assume that?

It is unfortunate it has come to this. Our conversations are usually enjoyable.

Often we think that heat and temperature are the same thing. However, this is not the case. Heat and temperature are related to each other, but are different concepts.
How does Temperature Differ from Heat?

So how does it relate to our discussion?

I did notice that you took the effort to edit out my quote in post #90, which explicitly noted assumptions made in measurement.

It said that a theory evolved from an assumption. That means it is no longer an assumption, but a theory. Do you understand the difference between a theory and an assumption?

So, what authority would convince you assumptions are required for measurement?

I would like you to show me an actual explicit example of an assumption made in measurement. You first tried to claim that the constancy of laws was one such assumption, but I have shown that it is not assumed. It is in fact tested all of the time. Any others?

On page 103 of Scientific Method, A.D. Ritchie states:
The vital point of the whole matter is the nature of our first assumption H0 and its probability because it is ex hypothesi not derived from any previous term ...

So what happens when we test to see if that assumption is true? Does it still remain an assumption?

[quoteSince you say you are not an expert in assessing Gaussian noise, what is H0?[/quote]

That a non-Gaussian source will randomly produce a Gaussian distribution. That chance ALWAYS exists, and the p value only relates the chances of that occuring according to the model being used.

Therefore, when you refer to the 95% rule, one must ask (as we engineers always do) why 95%?

It is arbitrary, as I have already stated. It is simply the low bar set for defining something as interesting and worth further consideration.

Why? Is science's only challenge an uncertainty principle, i.e. a wall that limits the precision of measurements?

We will always be limited in our knowledge, so there is no way that we can make statements with 100% confidence. Right around the corner there may be evidence that falsifies a long standing theory, just as happened with Newton's supposed unalterable laws.

 

[Davian]

I haven't seen any points made, so there is nothing to concede.

I was specifically referring to where I said that "You said, "you must recall that I did provide a definition of "immaterial"", implying that you had both used the term and provided such a definition on this very board."

There was also post #80: "It is a term that you have used; perhaps you could explain it." If asking me to explain "immaterial" is not a request for definition, then I am truly confused by your use of the English language.

A request and a requirement are two different things. I did not say it was your job to define anything. I was only providing an opportunity for you to provide clarity.

How is this relevant if you weren't referring to my definition and didn't ask for it? Regardless, see post #83. I recall a very lengthy discussion about "immaterial". I don't recall using the term "immaterial consciousness", but it is possible I did. You seem to recall that I used it, so maybe you should provide the link.

Here's one:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7711049/#post62041654

Originally? None. My first response to you came in post #79 where I asked for clarification. Your very next reply (post #80) referred to my usage and said it had no positive ontology. When I challenged you on that, noting that I do have a definition, you said you did not recall it (post #97). I feel no obligation to provide a definition to an issue you raised about something you weren't even aware of.

I feel that you do not actually have this definition you allude to that would pull this term out of the "impossible" hole, hence your evasive responses.

I could randomly pull a word from the dictionary, assume it likely you've used it in the past, apply my own definition, and refute you ... but I think that's called a strawman.

Or, in the same amount of text you have there, you may have been able to type that definition that has been so elusive.

I assumed you were present for this conversation. Why must I repeat it?

I was not present in that thread.

However, I was present in this thread, where you and I were discussing the supposed 'mind-body' problem, when you dropped out when the subject of terminology came up. What happened there?

Regardless, if you do not recall my definition, what exactly were you challenging with your original post?

Why would I need your definition?

This? This is your challenge? Fine. I already replied to this in post #83. To say, "The thing we have not defined is impossible," is a meaningless statement.

That is a statement I did not make. Did you mention strawman?

Nothing has been shown impossible by such word games.

And nothing has been shown possible by such word games.

If you wish to provide definitions of "immaterial" with which you are familiar, and which you think impossible, feel free to do so.

No, I think the goalposts should stay where they are.

The term is "immaterial consciousness". Scientifically impossible, in that it lacks a positive ontology.

 

[durangodawood]

...The term is "immaterial consciousness". Scientifically impossible, in that it lacks a positive ontology.

I dont understand. What is a "positive ontology"?

 

[quatona]

What would science say is impossible?

Science strongly suggests that I replace my hope that dropping a plate will result in the plate floating in front of me by "no, that´s impossible".

On another note: It seems to me that science does not really allow for the possibility of permanence.

 

[Upisoft]

Shrug. How long is suddenly? F = ma. A larger force will accomplish it in a shorter time.

Suddenly, instantly, zero time, infinite force & energy

 

[Resha Caner]

Why must we assume that?

No one particular assumption is required. Past scientists played that game for awhile - eliminating assumptions by one trick or another in an attempt to create a system that began with the self-evident. No one was ever successful. Finding a system that does not make this particular assumption merely means we have made a different assumption.

So how does it relate to our discussion?

OK. I'll ignore the elephant in the room and answer your question. It relates because you asked for examples, and this was an example.

It said that a theory evolved from an assumption. That means it is no longer an assumption, but a theory. Do you understand the difference between a theory and an assumption?

Yes I understand the difference, but I think you misconstrue what was said. Further, I provided other citations later.

I would like you to show me an actual explicit example of an assumption made in measurement. You first tried to claim that the constancy of laws was one such assumption, but I have shown that it is not assumed. It is in fact tested all of the time. Any others?

You showed no such thing, and I already replied to your example.

So what happens when we test to see if that assumption is true? Does it still remain an assumption?

Assumptions are not tested ... though I'm aware people sometimes use that as a colloquial expression. If you test something, you are testing a hypothesis. Do you understand the difference?

We will always be limited in our knowledge, so there is no way that we can make statements with 100% confidence.

When you make statements like this it seems to me you are still confusing the measuring (the model) and the measurement.

But this conversation has no point until you answer the other elephant in the room - the one I'm not going to ignore. What authority would you accept on this topic? Obviously not mine, so what?

 

[Resha Caner]

I feel that you do not actually have this definition you allude to that would pull this term out of the "impossible" hole, hence your evasive responses.

I can't help how you feel.

I was not present in that thread.

I was referring to the current thread.

No, I think the goalposts should stay where they are.

Exactly. Which is why I didn't provide the definition. Rather, I want you to answer the question: to what usage of "immaterial consciousness" did your original challenge refer?

Here's one:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7711049/#post62041654

However, I was present in this thread, where you and I were discussing the supposed 'mind-body' problem, when you dropped out when the subject of terminology came up. What happened there?

Are these the threads you refer to? Then why did it take until post #110 for you to reference it? Was it because it took so much digging? The thread where I used that term is not one you participated in, and it appears I didn't use the term in the thread you did participate in. A thread, which BTW, ended over a year ago. I don't recall why these threads died out. Threads die all the time and for a thousand different reasons. For you to claim you know the reason why (other than your own personal reasons to stop participating in a thread) is nonsense.

The term is "immaterial consciousness". Scientifically impossible, in that it lacks a positive ontology.

I answered this. Simply repeating what I have already answered gains nothing.

A request and a requirement are two different things.

Yes, they are different words. Are you saying you were requesting a discussion about my definition of immaterial? Or is there something about the mind-body discussion you wish to continue? OK. But I'll note two things: 1) It means we're moving on from my OP in this thread. 2) I'll just come right out and poison the well. I have no confidence you intend to pursue that discussion in good faith.

 

[Resha Caner]

Suddenly, instantly, zero time, infinite force & energy

OK. To me "instantly" means something different than "suddenly". So, science claims an infinite force is impossible? Do you have a citation for that?

Regardless, I can think of some models of time that might make something appear instantaneous to an observer when it isn't to the active agent.

Science strongly suggests that I replace my hope that dropping a plate will result in the plate floating in front of me by "no, that´s impossible".

You didn't define "float", so I can't say whether I would agree. Regardless, one can always define a set of boundary conditions that makes something impossible in theory. The question then becomes whether one can enforce those boundary conditions with absolute confidence. There is a difference between "the plate is unlikely to float" and "it is impossible the plate will float".

On another note: It seems to me that science does not really allow for the possibility of permanence.

Hmm. This is an interesting one. With that said, I think you've changed the question. Science may not claim the possibility of permanence, but that is different from claiming permanence is impossible.

 

[Upisoft]

OK. To me "instantly" means something different than "suddenly". So, science claims an infinite force is impossible? Do you have a citation for that?

Regardless, I can think of some models of time that might make something appear instantaneous to an observer when it isn't to the active agent.

Well, language barrier. My English unfortunately is not perfect.

The problem is division by zero... when action have to happen in zero time. And we call division by zero "infinity", so... yes. Science hates infinities.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, language barrier. My English unfortunately is not perfect.

You have no need to apologize. Your English is excellent. Even native speakers sometimes fail to understand each other.

The problem is division by zero... when action have to happen in zero time. And we call division by zero "infinity", so... yes. Science hates infinities.

Maybe scientists hate discontinuities, but that doesn't make it impossible. There seems to be much discussion that attempts to explain those discontinuties rather than dismissing them.

 

[Upisoft]

Maybe scientists hate discontinuities, but that doesn't make it impossible. There seems to be much discussion that attempts to explain those discontinuties rather than dismissing them.

One is to explain, another is to experimentally observe them. We had no chance to observe any real discontinuity yet. I bet (now that is not science ) we will not observe any.

 

[Resha Caner]

One is to explain, another is to experimentally observe them. We had no chance to observe any real discontinuity yet. I bet (now that is not science ) we will not observe any.

I agree with you, but a lack of evidence is not a proof of impossibility.