tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post110936405669449921..comments2024-01-01T08:18:36.278-05:00Comments on Real Physics: Why "Real Physics"?Lawrence Gagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01242322119143922513noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-32251401789796080642014-07-30T13:41:26.170-04:002014-07-30T13:41:26.170-04:00"Superficial science would have us believe th...<i>"Superficial science would have us believe that the redness of an apple is simply a subjective impression produced by electromagnetic radiation of wavelength 650 nm."</i><br /><br />Which would even strike certain other creatures, perhaps, as some other primary visible quality, some other colour.<br /><br /><i>"On the contrary, if man knows any truth at all, the redness of an apple is a reality that truly exists in the apple. Redness is an objective quality."</i><br /><br />If so, where does it reside?<br /><br />I would say: in the aether between the atomic nuclei and electrons (if such there be). These would code the quality for the aether, but in the aether it would actually be there.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-25342624920180493822014-02-02T00:07:18.922-05:002014-02-02T00:07:18.922-05:00Sesetamhet, thanks for this steaming pile of regur...Sesetamhet, thanks for this steaming pile of regurgitated neck bearded blather, you pseudo-intellectual basement dweller! I mean, let’s put the faux-analytical hyperbole away for a while and look at reality: Kalaam Cosmological Argument, the Argument from Reason, Fine Tuning of Universal Constants, irreducible biological complexity, the argument from morality… While you sit there and quibble over who has read more books, your entire world view lies shattered at your feet. If you truly honor the gods of reason and critical thinking half as much as you claim, you would plant your face firmly into your hand, step away from the device, find a quiet place, and rethink your life. Indeed, why are you even bothering to comment at all? No atheistic position can be taken seriously until two threshold questions can coherently be answered. 1. Why is the atheist even engaging in the debate. On atheism, there is no objective basis for even ascertaining truth; there is no immaterial aspect to consciousness and all mental states are material. Therefore, everyone who ever lived and ever will live could be wrong about a thing. By what standard would that ever be ascertained on atheism? Also if atheism is true, there is no objective meaning to existence and no objective standard by which the ‘rational’ world view of atheism is more desirable, morally or otherwise, to the ‘irrational’ beliefs of religion. Ridding the world of the scourge of religion, so that humanity can ‘progress’ or outgrow it, is not a legitimate response to this because on atheism, there is no reason to expect humanity to progress or grow. We are a historical accident that should fully expect to be destroyed by the next asteriod, pandemic, or fascist atheist with a nuke. In short, if atheism is correct, there is no benefit, either on an individual or societal level, to knowing this or to spreading such ‘knowledge.’ 2. Related to this, why is the atheist debater even alive to participate. If there is no heaven, no hell, no afterlife at all, only an incredibly window of blind pitiless indifference, then the agony of struggling to exist, seeing loved ones die, and then dying yourself can never be outweighed by any benefit to existing. As rude as it way sound (and I AM NOT advocating suicide) the atheist should have a coherent explanation for why they chose to continue existing. Failure to adequately address these threshold questions should result in summary rejection of the neckbeard’s position.<br />In the end, we all know you can’t answer these questions because yours is a petty, trivial, localized, earth bound philosophy, unworthy of the universe.<br />Finally, is there a basement dwelling troll left in the multiverse who doesn’t drag themselves out of the primordial ooze and logged onto this site in order to announce our collective atheism towards Thor, that gardens can be beautiful without fairies (a powerful rebuttal to fairy apologetics, by the way, but it leaves a lot unanswered about the Gardener), and that we cling to Bronze Age skymen due to our fear of the dark? Let me translate that to neckbeard: you are unoriginal, you are wrong, and you are an ass.<br />Also, FTW atheism is incoherent:<br />http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/higher-things/2011/nov/19/atheism-why-it-logically-incoherent<br />http://www.catholicthinker.net/the-incoherence-of-atheism/<br />http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/4-arguments-transcendence.htm<br />http://www.reasonsforgod.org/the-best-reasons/the-argument-from-reason/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-16032772704355974262011-06-09T23:00:03.880-04:002011-06-09T23:00:03.880-04:00This page is interesting, because a lot of the log...This page is interesting, because a lot of the logic chains are correct. However, the conclusions drawn from them are wild jumps.<br /><br />"Without intrinsic meaning, nature has no moral value." - Sounds right.<br />"If moral values are not part...there are no real constraints on human action." - That's true, nature permits us to act any way we wish.<br />"Human rights lose all meaning." - What??? How on earth does that fall from the above statements? You demand an absolute, "intrinsic" meaning? Human rights have a meaning because we grant them a meaning. Just because human rights are created by humans, and not by nature (which they are), does not mean that they don't have meaning.<br /><br />This is the mistake of many metaphysicists, to completely forget about emotions, and to demand logical, a priori motivations for morals. ABSOLUTE MORALS DO NOT EXIST. However, subjective morals do. Morals are have their basis in emotion and experience, not absolute logic. The only justification possible for morals is "I am emotionally drawn to this moral." or "This moral has led to happiness and harmony in the past." (note, happiness and harmony are both "good" a priori, and are also both emotions) <br /><br />Stop looking for an absolute meaning where there is none. We are utterly insignificant in the eyes of the universe. However, we are not insignificant in the eyes of ourselves, and that is what matters.Sesetamhetnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-72773425393442697412011-05-23T20:38:17.811-04:002011-05-23T20:38:17.811-04:00But, hechizos, that is only the mechanical lumenif...But, hechizos, that is only the mechanical lumeniferous aether of Lorenz and Mach. (Provided "self-propagating" has any meaning.) It does not invalidate Einstein's relativistic aether, nor dark matter nor the quantum vacuum, which bid fair to qualify as the aether.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-14011354359830267482011-03-20T20:27:12.779-04:002011-03-20T20:27:12.779-04:00Nope. For a while, scientists thought that light w...Nope. For a while, scientists thought that light waves propagated through the aether. They now know that light is made of self-propagating electromagnetic waves that don't have to travel through any medium. Aether theory WAS legitimate (if incorrect) physics for a while, but it's long outdated.hechizoshttp://www.hechizosyencantos.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-65323191668178428182008-12-07T16:06:00.000-05:002008-12-07T16:06:00.000-05:00Into the quality of nature itself thus reveals the...Into the quality of nature itself thus reveals the purpose of nature, for nature itself is that which is quality, and when nature's quality is consciously recognized in the mind, all else becomes meaningless, for truly it is.<BR/><BR/>The objective "redness" in the apple is only as such to the mind who perceives its "redness" for nothing can be perceived without the context to refer to it. The act of perceiving itself is an act of referring to a frame of reference where that which is referenced is merely in context to that which is perceived in the context.<BR/><BR/>Any artist who attempts to capture scenery in its realist vibrancy soon realizes that green is not so green, and red may be more red that what it was thought to be. Colors can only be seen in relation to what surrounds them. A White dot on a green canvas takes on the quality of green to a degree where the same white dot on a black canvas takes on the quality of black, and thus, white is not so white anymore. And although the physical composition that is the white dot has not changed, the frame through which that white dot is in reference to has, and thus, the context says "white ain't so white after all". All this activity occurring, not out there in the "objective" world, only in the mind.<BR/><BR/>The subjective redness of the apple dominates the mind of the one who see the red. And yet, another mind who perceives the same redness sees only the redness that they perceive. Still, the apple has not changed, only the context through which is was referred to has.<BR/><BR/>The objectivity that science longs to illuminate will never come. The subjectivity that philosophy seeks to explain has never been.<BR/><BR/>There is only that which is, and it is the duty of the mind of awareness to be aware of that which is, and not construct false frames of reference that are not there.<BR/><BR/>Be Free, Live Now, for it is the only moment that ever has been, or ever will be...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-84953545129024617772007-02-14T15:43:00.000-05:002007-02-14T15:43:00.000-05:00At the risk of being obsequious, wow. It is encour...At the risk of being obsequious, wow. It is encouraging and intimidating to find someone who thinks about such things on a level deeper than my own.Ken Mannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10998898226656813942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-1121396999000424932005-07-14T23:09:00.000-04:002005-07-14T23:09:00.000-04:00Dear Dr. Jester. Thank you for the detailed expla...Dear Dr. Jester. Thank you for the detailed explanation regarding the title of your blog. I'd also like to extend a hearty "congratulations" to you regarding your recent good news! Praise be to God! You will be a major asset to the crime ring, I mean, "organization".<BR/>Sincerely,<BR/>Miss NatashaNataliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04710432714830613499noreply@blogger.com