- Status
A
AlNg
Guest
Your sentence is not “real” but has only virtual reality supposedly describing the underlying reality. So what?
A
AlNg
Guest
The model describing the electron is a real model.
A
AlNg
Guest
You are basically saying nothing because what you say is true of anything. Your description of the house you live in. Your talking about your car and its gas mileage. Your conversation about the school and the classes you are attending. What your teacher teaches you. These are not the underlying reality but are all simply described by your sentences. Your sentences do not exist outside of your mind because the thing that exists outside of your mind is the underlying reality which is not your statement.
M
mythbuster1
Guest
No, if time dilation were not real, the speed of light would not be constant regardless of relative motion between the source and the detector. However, we observe that a neutral pion at rest decays into two photons, moving with equal speed and equal energy in opposite directions, but a neutral pion in motion decays into two photons moving with equal speed and unequal energy in opposite directions. The difference in the energy of the photons is equal to the momentum of the pion in the lab frame multiplied by the speed of light.
R
rom
Guest
Does energy come from gravity? Was there gravity before there was any mass? Where did mass come from? From energy? So where did energy come from? Now we have gone full circle.
See? This is why I advise not to use use concepts like “energy”, “gravity,” etc. when you are in pursuit of the cause of being or existence. Energy is only a mathematical product; so is gravity. They are just concepts useful for describing nature, but not for finding the cause or explanation of nature. Start with something real, such as the cell from which all living organisms are supposed to have descended. What is the cause of its life? Where will it borrow its life, when there was no other living cell yet? Here life is the money, and life was not always available when the earth existed.
If you want to remain in the non-biological level, ask where the real atoms (not the model, but the reality represented by them), came from? Where did they get their existence? How did they come to be in the universe? Here the money is existence. Did they always exist? How did you know?
A
AlNg
Guest
You are the one who has to prove that there was a beginning and no full circle. I am saying that I don’t see the contradiction in assuming that there was no beginning. And there is a full circle or cyclical model of the universe that has been proposed as something to be looked at seriously.
Last edited:
R
rom
Guest
I already submitted my proof (See Post # 39) But you said that energy from gravity is always available. So, I rejected it because it is like begging the question. Energy comes from gravity, and gravity comes from mass, and mass comes from energy. That means, energy comes from energy. BEGGING THE QUESTION!!! That’s the full circle I am talking about. I am not talking about cyclical theories of the universe. I am talking about the circularity in your own reasoning.
The issue here is the existence of the world. Here the money is existence. What is the origin of the money (or existence)? If everything in the world is only borrowing its existence from another, and there is nothing that exists that can account for its own existence and the existence of other things, then you can go to infinity if you want, but you will only end up with an infinity of possible beings with nothing actually existing. That was the point of the argument in my Post # 39 above. (By the way, I edited or added a sentence in the third paragraph to make the thought clearer. Please read it again thoughtfully.)
R
rom
Guest
Time dilation is real insofar as it is really the measured difference in elapsed time between two clocks. Actually, real time exists, too, but the physicist’s measurement of time itself is irrelevant to the philosophical meaning of real time, which is given in terms of being and motion. So there is no quarrel here with the theory of relativity.
Real time exists because we live in it. But time as a dimension is only in the mind. This is why we can have a spacetime continuum (a 4D model) in the mind, but not in reality.
Jimmy, you are talking just like me. What are you, Rom 2?
R
rom
Guest
We usually have a visual perception of space, not immediately when we were born, but from infancy when we start to grab things. Time is perceived, not by our senses, but by our consciousness of motion. By motion I do not merely mean external local motion, which we can perceive with our senses, but also motion that happens in the soul, such as changes in our thoughts, feelings, desires, etc. Without those changes and the perception of motion, we will not be aware of the passing of time. Remember the story of Rip Van Winkle? He fell asleep after drinking liquor. He woke up an old man, unaware that 20 years have passed.
Where did the instructions in the RNA come from?
You quoted that part of my post where I asked where real atoms came from. Then you said they’ve always existed. How did you know that atoms always existed?
To EVERYBODY: Please keep posting even when I am away. I will answer as soon as I come back. Thanks!
Last edited:
L
lelinator
Guest
The problem is that our perception of time is exactly the same as our perception of space. We just don’t realize it.
When you look out at the world you perceive that there’s a spatial separation between you and everything else. But what isn’t as readily apparent is that there’s a temporal separation between you and everything else as well. Everything that you perceive is both some “where” else, and some “when” else. The most obvious example of this are the stars. We’re all aware that when we look at the stars we’re seeing them as they were millions, or even billions of years ago. But the same holds true for everything. There’s a temporal separation between you and everything that you perceive that’s just as real as the spatial separation is. And time is just as valid of a means of defining that separation as space is.
You could say that me and that star are so many miles apart, or you could say that me and that star are so many minutes apart, and they would both be valid means of defining that separation. Time is just as much a dimension as space is.
Now you may point out that you’re free to move backwards in space, but you can’t move backwards in time. But that simply isn’t true. You can’t move backwards in space any more than you can move backwards in time, because the universe is constantly expanding, which means that you can’t go back to “where” you were, anymore than you can go back to “when” you were. Whenever you move spatially, relative to something else, you’re also moving temporally relative to it as well. The two things are interconnected…they’re relative. Which is why we refer to them as one thing…spacetime.
Space and time must be viewed as one thing. Because time is just as much a dimension as space is.
R
rom
Guest
Are chemicals intelligent that they can synthesize an RNA with amazingly ingenious instructions for manufacturing the body parts of the cell?
I did not make a definite assertion that atoms came into being. Actually, I was open to the idea that atoms always existed, if it could be proved. It was you who made the assertion that atoms always existed. Where is your evidence?
R
rom
Guest
I don’t agree. Like I said, our perception of time requires consciousness of motion. It also involves the memory, or the remembrance of what happened before and after. The perception of space requires none of those. In space you can see what is before and after an object; you don’t have to remember it. In time you need to remember because the event in the past is no more. Therefore, we don’t perceive time in exactly the same way as we perceive space.
Of course time is a valid dimension. And it is real, too, in the sense that a past event actually existed outside your mind. That means, it wasn’t just invented by the mind, but really happened in the past. But, unlike spatial dimension, which always exist (such as the measurements of your room), the time dimension is now only calculated by your mind because the past no longer is.
We live in time so spacetime is a useful concept. I never had a problem with that. If I were to make predictions about the world, I will also be using that concept. Spacetime is a valid mathematical concept, and you can even build a consistent geometry based on it. But we are not talking about the mathematical status of spacetime. We are talking about the ontological status of spacetime. Is it a real being or a being of reason? I say it is a being of reason based on reality. Philosophers call it an ens rationis cum fundamento in re, “a being of reason with a foundation in reality.”
Lelinator, we have both presented our sides adequately on this issue. If you still don’t agree with me (and you don’t have to), then let’s just agree to disagree. You did a good job presenting your side. I will pray more so that in the future God will help me explain my side in a better way than I have so far done.
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Simple rna arose from happenstance processes and their interactions with lipids and other organic structures gave rise to cells. No intelligence, just chance.
If you’re looking for evidence without providing your own then there’s no way to finish this discussion. Neither side has proof.
W
Wesrock
Guest
@lelinator mentioned me a few times in regards to hierarchical series. I don’t know how far the topic has moved on from that, but I can briefly speak to it.
A series of falling dominoes is not an example of an hierarchical series, because once one domino is fallen its role is done. It does not need to contribute any continuing action to the series for the other members of the series to be actualized. Like Aquinas’ example with father begetting son, who becomes a father and begets a son, the series is accidentally or linearly ordered.
What makes a series hierarchical is that the continuing action of earlier members of the series is necessary for the series to continue to be. To try to come up with a few simples examples, I’ll start with a book on a shelf. While one way to approach the situation is a series of discrete moments, one can also approach it by understanding that the books continued position relative to the surface of the Earth is only explained by the continued action of the shelf in supporting that book. The actualization of that potential only remains actualized so long as the shelf remains active (relative to the book). And the shelf is explained by the wall, and the wall by its foundation, and the foundation by the Earth. The same can be said for the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. Sure, if the sun disappeared this instant, there would be a time lag before the Earth lost its orbit, because the affects of the gravity well does not instantly cross space. Still, the continued orbit of the earth is continuously dependent on the gravity well which is dependent upon the Sun’s presence. Remove the Sun, and the actualization of the Earth’s current orbit is lost.
Continued in next post…
A series of falling dominoes is not an example of an hierarchical series, because once one domino is fallen its role is done. It does not need to contribute any continuing action to the series for the other members of the series to be actualized. Like Aquinas’ example with father begetting son, who becomes a father and begets a son, the series is accidentally or linearly ordered.
What makes a series hierarchical is that the continuing action of earlier members of the series is necessary for the series to continue to be. To try to come up with a few simples examples, I’ll start with a book on a shelf. While one way to approach the situation is a series of discrete moments, one can also approach it by understanding that the books continued position relative to the surface of the Earth is only explained by the continued action of the shelf in supporting that book. The actualization of that potential only remains actualized so long as the shelf remains active (relative to the book). And the shelf is explained by the wall, and the wall by its foundation, and the foundation by the Earth. The same can be said for the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. Sure, if the sun disappeared this instant, there would be a time lag before the Earth lost its orbit, because the affects of the gravity well does not instantly cross space. Still, the continued orbit of the earth is continuously dependent on the gravity well which is dependent upon the Sun’s presence. Remove the Sun, and the actualization of the Earth’s current orbit is lost.
Continued in next post…
W
Wesrock
Guest
I think the money example given before can be modified to work, though as presented it reads like a linear series. Rather than present it as a series of events where $20 was given from one person to another, instead frame it as Phil has a $20 line of credit from Sam, who has a $20 line of credit from Margaret, who has a $20 line of credit from Sarah . . . with some stipulations that no member in this series is capable of producing in any way $20 themselves (and also understanding, for the sake of the example, that while in actual economics money only has value because people agree it has value, and that in real life people can create their own currency and terms of barter, we’re putting that aside for now, or going back to the gold standard 
). We can see that if no member in the series is capable of producing $20 (backed up by gold!) and has received it from no one, there could be no actual line of credit. An infinite regress and there actually being $20 of value in the system is nonsensical. The only way it would make sense if some term in the series (linear, cyclical, whatever) actually did have $20 backed up by gold full stop, or was capable of producing itself. Otherwise the $20 could not be in the system. I could hash that out more.
Ultimately, what St. Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways are based on are hierarchical series. The First Way on our actualization, the Second Way on our essential efficient causation, the Third Way on the composition of essence and existence and its contingency, the Fourth Way on the perfections of our natures, the Fifth Way on our teleology. All that it is right now, that it continues to be, and that continuation is dependent on other continuing action here and now.
). We can see that if no member in the series is capable of producing $20 (backed up by gold!) and has received it from no one, there could be no actual line of credit. An infinite regress and there actually being $20 of value in the system is nonsensical. The only way it would make sense if some term in the series (linear, cyclical, whatever) actually did have $20 backed up by gold full stop, or was capable of producing itself. Otherwise the $20 could not be in the system. I could hash that out more.Ultimately, what St. Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways are based on are hierarchical series. The First Way on our actualization, the Second Way on our essential efficient causation, the Third Way on the composition of essence and existence and its contingency, the Fourth Way on the perfections of our natures, the Fifth Way on our teleology. All that it is right now, that it continues to be, and that continuation is dependent on other continuing action here and now.
Last edited:
- Status