| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag  Spores for European Microscopy  North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
| |||||||
 3eyedgod trippinkid  Registered: 11/24/02 Posts: 684 Loc: Far away and ver Last seen: 23 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
I hardly ever ask anyone to prove to me something they've just said.
It almost seems rude. What's wrong with giving a SHRED, a mere SLIVER of your consciousness over to the idea that something you don't believe in is possible and happenes... no matter what you believe? They way I see it (and I certainly don't expect anyone will agree with me ), Anyway, I think that my point is: Even if there's no proof, so what? That doesn't change the fact that shit happens and people experience things you may not believe to be possible. I agree with you 
-------------------- Without everything wouldn't nothing be everything and without nothing wouldn't everything be nothing.I am the beginning and the end,the source and the void, the light and the darkness,i am but a small drop of the ocean yet i am an ocean unto myself
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
Between wretching perhaps you can explain how ANY data is not derived via the 5-6 physical senses or through the construct we call thought.
Never said I could using that criterion. But using logic and philosophy it is abundantly clear that this reality exists and is independent of the mind. Please Mr Mushrooms let's not be so arrogant to hold any representations of reality to be absolute. Ah the old 'arrogant' card, is it? Is that how you deal with a person that you cannot provide substantive evidence for? Strikes me as a bit ad hominem. Shall I say in return please let's not be so insane to hold this entire reality to the whims of your need to feel at peace? Hardly. Since you were the one bringing forth this issue that I shall, in the interest of keeping to the topic, ask you! to provide some evidence for what I see as patent nonsense. Please show use how this reality is not absolute. I'm dying to hear it. They are merely consistantly reproduced by senses and thought,not necessarily accurate representations of reality. And you can provide evidence for this, can't you? I repeat my request. For instance Earths gravity.Sensualy it seems as if the Earth "pulls" us down.We then create instruments which we use and our senses create the thought that gravity is a warp in space-time and we derive that the Earth is not "pulling"us ,we are accelerating down the space-time curve.Now without using any of these means Mr.Mushrooms describe gravity.You cannot. No, I cannot when you have predetermined the instruments at my disposal. Similarly, if I poke out your eardrums and ask you to tell me what is playing on the radio you cannot do that either. What are you driving at, phenomenalism? That has been refuted for some time now. I suggest you do some study before you expose your ignorance any further. What I am saying is simple quantum physics.The Observer affects the Observed,Changing the reality of the Observed.Now if you wish to limit YOUR reality to a strictly Newtonian physics then you will miss most of the latest thought on "reality".  You have misunderstood quantum mechanics if you think it provides evidence for phenomenalism. BTW I find "reality" neither difficult to deal with nor do I deny I exist within it I just do not hold my interpretations of my subjective or "objective" surroundings to be absolute  If you don't find reality to be difficult to deal with then what is the justification for clinging to an antiquated belief like phenomenalism? I am just spitballing here but I'll bet you have clung to this belief for a long time. It's hard to let go of precious nuggets, isn't it? And yes at times I have had the pleasure of "groking the oneness" and "feeling the peace" and other times I've copped shitty 'tudes like yours  Ah yes, the ol' "shitty 'tudes" card.  Perhaps, and here I go spitballing again, you should spend more time grokking the oneness and less time telling people reality isn't real. And as for going along on my "trip" who asked ya to come? You did, when you started prattling your nonsense. This is one time I will not remain silent and let you or others think I have bought a load of hogwash like you are selling. To quote Jack Nicholson, "Sell crazy somewhere else. We're all stocked up around here." As to using reason to read your posts is concerned, I do. That is why I decided to rebut your argument. Don't take any of this hard or in a spirit in which is was not intended. I am not coming down on YOU! I am coming down on phenonmenalism. To think that YOU are the brunt of my post is to engage yourself in your own ego. It is unlikely you will find any "onenes" or "peace" that way. Again, I repeat my request. If you have evidence that this reality is not absolute then please post it. Could be the next big breakthrough in philosophy. Or don't you want the Nobel prize? Cheers, Edited by Mr_Mushrooms (12/04/02 02:07 PM)
| |||||||
 whiterasta Day careobserver  Registered: 04/09/02 Posts: 1,780 Loc: Oregon |
| ||||||
That's just it Sclorch we DO NOT share the same subjective reality only the consensual objective reality.This becomes apparent when taking witness statements or listening to our Attorney General  .We each experience reality slightly differently subjectively and agree sensualy on objective reality.Burden of proof is an interesing concept as it usually entails creating a consensual version of reality that has enough objective evidence to establish one version of reality over another(or unreality as the case may be) Of course the manner in which objective evidence is presented can indeed weight it's interpretation with subjective opinion. I hope I have obfusicated myself completly As always stimulating chat Sclorch although I do realize we are on different wavelengths in some ways  I understand pragmatism just not myopia
-------------------- To old for this place
| |||||||
|
whiterasta Day careobserver Registered: 04/09/02 Posts: 1,780 Loc: Oregon |
| ||||||
|
If you can pinpoint the mass and position of an electron I WILL concede that "this" reality is absolute.Quantum physics states that "reality" demands that certain events will occur in this reality it also states that "other" realities" exist with different criteria.mearly the fact that there is the possibility of other realities denies the absolute nature of this particular one reality we share
Peace MM even if it is real it ain't permanent WRPS one cannot use logic and reason without the physical construct called "mind" considering that it cannot even be adequatly described(mind) saying that it's constucts "logic and reason" can prove anything is nothing short of mental egotism.Can you even prove the existance of "mind" in it's absence? If not then reality is not absolute.Say someone said "hey Mr.Mushroom I got this thing you can't see,hear,or touch,and without it's interface with my body It still exists you just can't experience it" Would you believe? In physics there are no absolutes merely phase changes I expect "reality" to hold to this principle
-------------------- To old for this place Edited by whiterasta (12/04/02 03:17 PM)
| |||||||
|
Sclorch Clyster   Registered: 07/12/99 Posts: 4,805 Loc: On the Brink of |
| ||||||
|
It's funny how many times I have to repeat myself...
How did any of you get the idea that I am all about absolutism? Was it when you read my post on HETEROabsolutism? Was it when I constantly refered to Nietzsche as a ZEN MASTER? Was it when I blatantly stated that absolutism is a crap concept (but we all KNOW that I really wholeheartedly support absolutism)? Seriously, reading comprehension is a major issue here. Or is it merely a MEMORY problem? I don't know... never claimed I did. I'm just as lost in this abyss as everyone else... the only difference between me and the many others is that I prefer that my system of working quasi-beliefs (in the spirit of heteroabsolutism) cohere as much as possible with the experiences of myself and others. Coherence, people! That's all I'm after. It's how man and mind have come this far. It's how we'll go furthUr. -------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
"If you can pinpoint the mass and position of an electron I WILL concede that "this" reality is absolute."
Oh no you don't. This is exactly what Sclorch is talking about. The burden of proof lies with you, dear friend. If you cannot provide it then your ideas are nonsense. "Quantum physics states that "reality" demands that certain events will occur in this reality it also states that "other" realities" exist with different criteria." As I said before you have misread quantum mechanics. You are relying on reductionism for evidence. That also is another error. You seem to ladle error upon error. Quantum mechanics is a theory about what happens where normal reality does not exist. Clinging to it will not provide you or anyone else with the necessary tools to live adequately in this common experience we all share. If you are wounded perhaps that is why. Don't run from reality just because you can't cope with it. That will never solve anyone's problems. Have you heard of entia rationalis? I doubt it because you are conflating it with entia reale. There are two threads in this forum that I advise you to read. The first one explains why quantum mechanics cannot be used as you are using it. Use the search engine and type the words "quantum mechanics" into the area for the title. I created that thread in an effort to steer people away from the error you are making. Check out the thread and let me know what you think. Beyond that I cannot help you. Peace,
| |||||||
|
whiterasta Day careobserver Registered: 04/09/02 Posts: 1,780 Loc: Oregon |
| ||||||
|
I got YOU on absolutism Sclorch,Heteroabsolutism all the way the post was for Mr mushrooms not you.
And like you I prefer coherence,I perhaps am more comfortable with chaos however And have pehaps a slightly different view of chaos' role in the manifestation of "reality".....back to burden of proof LOL .It is I believe in our concepts of what provides coherence in which I believe we are in differing thought modes.I believe coherence is provided by patterns arising from chaos,Chaos is everpresent and is the infinite implicit order.Coherent reality is created by self-replicating patterns which due to arguable reasons recurr in a predictable fashion.Mr Mushrooms:I find your arguments fundamentaly simplistic and myopic but don't take it personaly,most philosophers have a limited understanding of physics I did however enjoy your aggressive retorts Enjoyed the afternoon blokes,have a fine evening WR
-------------------- To old for this place
| |||||||
|
GoBlue! Tool Rules - DBK  Registered: 10/27/02 Posts: 576 Loc: Ann Arbor, MI Last seen: 23 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Wow, I think the rationalists are finally starting to have an impact in these forums! When I first joined the Shroomery a few months ago, it seemed like only about 1 in 10 posters were rationalists, the rest were "spiritual believers" or whatever the appropriate word is. In this thread, over 1/2 of the posters seem to believe in burden of proof. I guess it's rational to be rational!
-------------------- Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
I find your arguments fundamentaly simplistic and myopic but don't take it personaly,most philosophers have a limited understanding of physics
However we find each other's arguments is really not the point, is it? I oftentimes find those enamoured with quantum mechanics to have a very poor understanding of philosophy and reality. I did however enjoy your aggressive retorts Think of them as trying to help. When I try to help I see myself as assertive, not aggressive. When I am attacking an idea I can become very aggressive. Especially if the idea is nonsense. Tell you what, and this is just for you I am not going to entertain comments about this from anyone else as I do not have that much time, here is the complete text from the thread I recommended that you read but that you did not. Hiding again? "Consider this: In the first place, let us note Niels Bohr's principle of complimentarity, which amounts to saying that conceiving the electron as a wave and conceiving it as a particle were not only alternative ways of conceiving it but complimentary ways of doing so. As Werner Heisenberg pointed out, these are "two complimentary descriptions of the same reality.... These descriptions can only partially true, there must be limitations to the use of the particle concept as well as the wave concept, else one could not avoid contradictions. If one takes into account those limitations which can be expressed by uncertainty relations, the contradictions disappear." In other words, Bohr's principle affirms the principle of non-contradiction as governing our thought, and it is a correct rule of thought only if non-contradiction is an ontological principle governing reality also. In the second place, let us observe the extraordinary difference between experimental measurements performed by scientists in the realm of classical or macroscopic physics, the realm of objects larger that the atom. Here the properties of the object being measured by the physicists are properties that inhere in the objects themselves, and would exist in reality as such whether measured by physicists or not. In other words, the physical properties of the object and the object itself are not in any way affected by their scientific measurement. The difference between quantum theory and classical physics lies in the fact that when we try to measure what is happening inside the atom our experimental measurements are intrusive; they affect the object being studied and confer upon the sub-atomic entities or events the properties attributed to them. Supra-atomic physical entities or events, on the other hand, are affected by our measurements to a negligible degree. The properties assigned to subatomic objects or events are conferred upon them by the experimental measurements that quantum physicists make. The crucial problem to be solved, which Einstein tried but failed to solve, can be formulated by two alternative questions as follows: 1. Is the physical reality of objects and the events within the interior of the atom in itself indeterminate in character; or 2. Is reality at the level of subatomic objects and events indeterminate in itself? The question was not answered satisfactorily by the thought experiment called the "Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox." The later thinking and experimental work that led to the confirmation of the Bell theorem favors the second answer. Almost all quantum physicists today accept the answer as correct. They think they know that subatomic reality is indeterminate in character. The regularities observed at the supra-atomic level, they say, arise solely from the statistical predictability of large aggregates of atoms. The indeterminacy attributed to subatomic objects and events by Heisenberg's uncertainty principles is not just their indeterminability by us; it is intrinsic to subatomic reality. Now we can ask the question, "Are the cosmic principles of uncertainty, both in the subatomic and in the supra-atomic levels, epistemic or ontological?" That is to say, do they indicate: 1. Values that are indeterminate by us; or 2. Values that are in themselves indeterminate? The two questions to which the quantum physicists think they know the right answers are philosophical, not scientific, questions. Questions that, if they can be answered at all, can only be answered by thought, not by research. Unfortunately for its effect on our thought, the quantum physicists presume to answer the questions as if the questions were answerable only by them in the light of their research findings. That is a serious mistake on their part. It is an egregious example of the presumption that scientists in many fields have made again and again in the current times. Atoms really existed in all the centuries before the scientific work that established their real existence. Atoms had interiors in which physical entities existed and physical events occurred in all the centuries before these facts were 'scientifically established'. It is certainly fair to ask what the subatomic reality was during all those centuries. Was it like the subatomic reality described by the current quantum theory? Was it a physical reality having all the intrinsic character of indeterminacy, or was it an intrinsically determinate physical reality like the supra-atomic reality of classical physics? To answer that question philosophically, it is logically necessary to bear in mind one point that the quantum physicists appear to forget or overlook. At the same time that the Heisenberg uncertainty principles were established, quantum physicists acknowledged that the intrusive experimental measurements that provided the data used in the mathematical formulations of quantum theory conferred on subatomic objects and events their indeterminate character. The foregoing italicized words imply that the indeterminate character of subatomic objects and events is not intrinsic to them, not properties they have quite apart from their being affected in any way by the measurements made by intrusive experimental devices. If the cause of the indeterminate values attributed to subatomic objects and events in quantum theory is the intrusive and disturbing measurement of those objects and events, then does not the elimination of that cause also eliminate its effect? In other words, was not the physical reality of subatomic objects determinate in all those earlier centuries when the atom existed and had an interior that the experimental measurements of quantum mechanics did not intrude upon and disturb? Can quantum mechanics through its experimentally performed measurements be a disturbing and intrusive influence that affects the character of subatomic reality and, at the same time, can its exponents be certain that subatomic reality has the intrinsic indeterminacy that quantum theory attributes to it? Is the unexamined interior of the atom intrinsically indeterminate or is it like the determinate character of supra-atomic reality? God knows the answer, as Einstein at the beginning of his controversy with Bohr declared when he said that God does not throw dice, which implied that the unexamined subatomic reality is a determinate reality. Whether or not God knows the answer, experimental science does not know it. Nor does philosophy know it with certitude. But philosophy can give a good reason for thinking that the subatomic reality is intrinsically determinate. The reason is that quantum theorists repeatedly acknowledge that their intrusive and disturbing measurements are the cause of the indeterminacy they attribute to subatomic objects and events. It follows, therefore, that that indeterminacy cannot be intrinsic to subatomic reality. Unfortunately quantum theory has inadvertently given undue comfort to the worst tendency in contemporary thought, philosophical idealism or constructivism, which denies a reality that exists in complete independence of the human mind and that has whatever intrinsic character it has without being affected by how the human mind knows it or thinks about it. To sum up: Quantum theory is a theory of the examined interior of the atom. The scientific examination of that interior is, according to quantum theory, an intrusive disturbance of what is going on there. It follows that further development of quantum and additional scientific investigation cannot tell us about the character of the unexamined atomic interior. Einstein was right that quantum theory is an incomplete account of subatomic reality. But he was wrong in thinking that that incompleteness could be remedied by means at the disposal of science. Why? Because the question that quantum theory and subatomic research cannot answer is a question for philosophy, not for science." There, enjoy! Edited by Mr_Mushrooms (12/04/02 05:00 PM)
| |||||||
Grav  Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 4,454 Last seen: 13 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
this thread is dismantling my brain as i read it.
you guys all put up very convincing arguments. I guess the only one I could see as being 'right' would maybe be the one who has experienced more un-biased reality than the others.... i mean like interacted with a greater variety of the aspects of life, not read more books on it.. in that sense there can never be a conclusion on a message board.. i dont think the brain will ever be satisfied with a group of words that SEEM to make sense, it has it's own validation system. but this is getting off track so.... keep up the debate guys, quite interesting
| |||||||
|
whiterasta Day careobserver Registered: 04/09/02 Posts: 1,780 Loc: Oregon |
| ||||||
|
excellent summation of some quantum mechanics
This is Scientism as Sclorch posted about.Something which I to abhor;) I think perhaps my views are perhaps more eastern in philosophical root .I am a follower of the Tarthang Tulku a Budhist philosopher/Physicist who IS addressing these holes that science leaves in understanding.Me thinks I will be comprehended poorly or even misunderstood completly trying to explain this mans thoughts........the book is Time,Space,and Knowledge by Tarthang Tulku It addresses these issues completly and much better than I can.All I can do is recomend it as excellent reading which logicly and rationaly brings a cohesive form to the chaotic polarities of thought in science and philosophy.Like you I have probably spent far too much time on this already so I leave with that WR
-------------------- To old for this place
| |||||||
falcon  Registered: 04/01/02 Posts: 8,449 Last seen: 2 hours, 56 minutes |
| ||||||
|
That which measures has mass, oh, things in motion have a tendency to revolve, in motion, around mass, oh do si do and around we go, oh.
--------------------
| |||||||
|
Murex Reality Hacker  Registered: 07/28/02 Posts: 3,599 Loc: Traped in a shel Last seen: 19 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
this thread is dismantling my brain as i read it.
I was going to say something like that. As for this......discussion- Why are people here who want hard facts here in SP&S? Can anything 'spiritual' be proven? Should anyones' personal Philosophy be the norm for others? I mean, shit...... -------------------- What if everything around you Isn't quite as it seems? What if all the world you think you know, Is an elaborate dream? And if you look at your reflection, Is it all you want it to be? 
| |||||||
|
Zero7a1 Leaving YourWast  Registered: 10/23/02 Posts: 3,594 Loc: Passing Cloud |
| ||||||
|
no one has talked about dreams...? what can you prove in a dream? "have you ever had a dream you were so sure that was real?" i have. but i knew it wasnt "reality" i was floating. but that right there has gotten me to a world that defies explanation or conventional means for understanding or whatever.
does duality ring a bell to anyone? what about the be nice policy? lol this believer thing... anyone think that some people dont care enough to try and explain what they obviously can barely understand themselves? they are just looking for answers to there own questions. that maybe these things which people see, are using logic to try and accomplish? maybe some people dont want to fight or take part in a duality which they obviously arent a part of. maybe this forum should divide into the dualists/ non dualists then the non dualists split into belivers/non beileivers or skeptics? see, i know you can all see. why divide ourselves? we find out so much more together. we can build what is obviously true and that which is not and use our findings to build onto a larger truth... i think this is a better way, than lets say trying to divide into sub sections divide and divide. shit were not a virus! let us be like shrooms that is afterall why they do what they do is it not?
-------------------- What?
| |||||||
|
Murex Reality Hacker Registered: 07/28/02 Posts: 3,599 Loc: Traped in a shel Last seen: 19 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Yeah, what about other states of consiousness that can't be explained by science? It's all within the human mind, and the brain is a giant piece of tissue- but thoughts are intangable, but yet we know they exist.
We all have done or do mushrooms right? Isn't that what brought us here?
-------------------- What if everything around you Isn't quite as it seems? What if all the world you think you know, Is an elaborate dream? And if you look at your reflection, Is it all you want it to be?
| |||||||
|
Baby_Hitler MAGAt Hunter   Registered: 03/06/02 Posts: 28,354 Loc: I'm right behind you, aren't I... Last seen: 1 hour, 38 minutes |
| ||||||
|
I agree burden of proof is irrelevant to spirituality.
Anyone who demands it is daft.
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
While things that are spiritual cannot be proven it is imperative to understand that the universe that exists independently of our mind can and does govern things that are spiritual.
If a person claims to be able to read minds the burden of proof is found in an experiment conducted in the physical universe. There is a connection. A person can believe whatever they want to believe but if it contradicts some basic principle of logic it is inaccurate at the least or an indication of mental illness at worst. Here is how logic and philosophy impact 'spiritual' truths. Here it will be helpful to explore the history of the idea of the unity of truth, how truth was unified in the beginning and how it became two seemingly separate non-overlapping entities. In the ancient past there was but one field of study that concerned truth in regard to the world and its origins, Theology. In the Western world this was for a time commingled with Philosophy. Later Philosophy pulled away from its roots and established itself independently. After a time Philosophy gave birth to Science and it pulled away from its source of origin as well. The thinkers in these various disciplines used various approaches to arrive at truth and it wasn't long before the different ideas and their proponents clashed. As far as I know the first clash of substance began in Baghdad circa 1075 AD. There was a Muslim philosopher/theologian named Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, sometimes known as Algazeli who wrote a book called, "The Incoherence of Philosophers" also known as "The Destruction of the Philosopher." The central theme of the book is a critique of philosophy in the light of religion. Algazeli started out as a philosopher and left it to become an Islamic mystic, but not before writing his "Destruction" book. He found that pure philosophy could not lead a person to the truth and his ideas about skepticism predated Hume's by centuries. Enter the Islamic philosopher Ibn Rushd Averroes, 1126-98 AD from Spain who wrote a book answering Algazeli's called, "Incoherence of the Incoherence" or "The Destruction of the Destruction." In it he proclaimed that there were two different bodies of truth: on the one hand the truths of faith; on the other hand the truths of reason. These two bodies of truth existed in what might be called "logic-tight" compartments. This argument was not a heated one in the way that arguments like this are in the world today. There were no headlines, no flashes on the Internet, no bulletins at the bottom of the TV screen. Many were unaware of the argument at all. In the time of Isaac Newton the unity was still somewhat preserved though the schism had begun in a remote corner of the world centuries earlier. Newton's religious views were a product of both his era and his temperament. Newton was born on Christmas day in 1642, the year in which Galileo died. For the last ten years of his life Galileo had been under a form of house arrest in Italy-eventually in his own home in the hills above Florence. The Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church had tried him in 1633 for holding heretical views about the motion of the Earth. His heresy lay in believing in the Copernican theory-the thesis advocated by the Polish astronomer Copernicus that the Earth moved around the Sun-which appeared to contradict the Bible. At the time, a man could go to prison-or worse- for holding such heretical views in the name of science. In Newton's time, there was more freedom to engage in science, but the idea that science and religion were separate enterprises would have appeared absurd to Newton. For Newton, the Bible was the literal truth and could be used as scientific evidence in the same way as any other kind of scientific observation. Newton spent a great deal of his time studying the Bible to learn when the universe was had been created and when it would end. One might give many more examples from the history of the natural sciences or from stages in the development of historical research about past events, but more examples are not needed for an understanding of the point being made. There is a time for mutually co-existing ideas (pluralism). In matters of taste for example two people can disagree and it can add flavor and variety to the world. I think that chocolate is the best and you think that vanilla is the best. I think that democracy is the best and you think that socialism is the best. The Latin phrase for this is "De gustibus non disputandum est." This means in matters of taste there is no disputing. A less well-known phrase is "De veritae disputandum est" which means about matters of truth we can (and I add should) engage in dispute. The reason for this is that in certain areas only one idea can be true at the same time. In history, mathematics, science, philosophy and religion there is room for competing and conflicting theories, hypotheses, doctrines, or propositions, only as long as no one of them is, at a given time, established as true. This is what is known in logic as non-contradiction. The logic of incompatible propositions is formulated by modern logicians in a manner that is slightly different from the way it was treated in antiquity. Aristotle, for example, distinguished incompatible propositions that are contradictory from incompatible propositions that are only contrary. In the case of contradictories, no middle ground is possible. The theistic affirmation "God exists" and the atheistic denial "God does not exist" stand in contradiction to one another: both cannot be true and both cannot be false; if one is true, the other MUST be false. The opposition of propositions that are contraries, not contradictories, is a weaker opposition; and a middle ground is possible. The monotheistic affirmation that there is only one God and the polytheistic affirmation that there are many gods cannot both be true, but both can be false. The atheist may be right that neither God nor gods exist. Modern logicians speak of strong and weak disjunctions. A disjunction here is being used in the sense of proper logic i.e. a proposition that presents two or more alternative terms, with the assertion that only one is true or neither is true. A strong disjunction is like the opposition of contradictories: either the proposition P is true or the proposition not-P is true, but both cannot be true and both cannot be false. In contrast, a weak disjunction is the opposition of contraries: either P or not-P is true, but both can be false. Here a middle ground is possible. For example, the two generalizations, "All dogs are green" and "No dogs are green" cannot both be true; if one is true the other is false; but BOTH can be false as they are when the truth lies in the middle ground: " Some dogs are green" and "Some dogs are not green." In religion there are truth claims that are descriptive and truth claims that are prescriptive. A descriptive truth claim is the claim made by the Bible that a person by the name of Jesus of Nazareth lived, died, and was resurrected from the grave in a supernatural or supra-natural way. This is not allegorical nor is it poetical, it is claimed by the Bible as a literal truth. An example of a prescriptive truth claim is the commandment, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy might, heart, soul, and strength." Whenever a descriptive truth claim comes into conflict with a scientific truth claim in the manner of a contradictory one of them has to be right and the other one is wrong. The only exception is if the statements are not contradictories but contraries. In that case they both many be wrong. If the Bible says that such and such a place was where a town used to exist and sciences proves that no town ever existed there, science is right and the Bible is wrong, though both may be wrong if this matter is a contrary. Hope that clears this up. This is why I am so admanant about denying physical reality. Cheers,
| |||||||
|
Murex Reality Hacker Registered: 07/28/02 Posts: 3,599 Loc: Traped in a shel Last seen: 19 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
This doesn't prove anything.
Hozabout prooving that a thought exists? -------------------- What if everything around you Isn't quite as it seems? What if all the world you think you know, Is an elaborate dream? And if you look at your reflection, Is it all you want it to be?
| |||||||
|
Sclorch Clyster Registered: 07/12/99 Posts: 4,805 Loc: On the Brink of |
| ||||||
|
This doesn't prove anything.
Read it until it makes sense, then come back and change your post. Thanks. -mgmt. ________________________________ Good (thorough) post Mr Mushrooms! When it comes to "this or that", we must follow logic... hence the whole "burden of proof" thing comes into play. I think I was aiming at the descriptive truth claims in regards to the existence of aliens etc. -------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
| |||||||
|
GazzBut Refraction  Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 1 year, 26 days |
| ||||||
|
"I prefer that my system of working quasi-beliefs (in the spirit of heteroabsolutism) cohere as much as possible with the experiences of myself and others. Coherence, people! That's all I'm after. It's how man and mind have come this far. It's how we'll go furthUr. "
So if everyone thought like you we would progress faster then? -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag Spores for European Microscopy North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
(Some) Physicists are as bad as religious fundamentalists (  1 2 all ) |
 OrgoneConclusion |
2,674 | 22 | 01/12/09 08:57 PM by Mr. Mushrooms |
|
 |
Newton's dark secrets |  Icelander |
981 | 8 | 11/16/05 02:22 PM by Ped |
|
 |
Proof ( 1 2 all ) |
 nice1 |
1,678 | 34 | 10/05/09 12:27 PM by learningtofly |
|
 |
Negative Proof ( 1 2 3 all ) |
OrgoneConclusion |
2,899 | 57 | 12/24/08 02:14 AM by deranger |
|
 |
Newton's self reflection | OrgoneConclusion |
514 | 8 | 12/18/10 10:10 PM by MarkostheGnostic |
|
|
Subatomic physics ( 1 2 all ) |
 Anonymous |
2,441 | 24 | 10/23/02 02:26 PM by trendal |
|
|
Subatomic frequencies. |  Droz |
1,495 | 9 | 02/08/05 09:14 AM by gnrm23 |
|
 |
Burden of Proof | OrgoneConclusion |
846 | 13 | 03/05/08 08:59 PM by backfromthedead |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 8,169 topic views. 2 members, 2 guests and 20 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||
