Lifegazer Philosophy 101 (from Faith in Science)

  • Thread starter Lifegazer
  • Start date
  • #26
Lifegazer
Originally posted by Tom
Tom: Again, how do you know that?

LG:
I know it via reason. (Followed by some stuff that shows you completely missed the point of the question)
Sorry about the confusion. Nevertheless, my post highlights the issues, and I'd like you to comment.
LG, I am not asking you how you know 1-d and 2-d objects do not exist in reality. I am asking you how you know that those objects are assumed by string theory. [/B]
http://feynman.physics.lsa.umich.edu/strings2000/mtheory.html [Broken]
Extract:-
"Until recently, the best hope for a theory that would unite gravity with quantum mechanics and describe all physical phenomena was based on strings: one-dimensional objects whose modes of vibration represent the elementary particles. In the past few years, however, strings have been subsumed by M-theory."

http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/basics.htm
extract:-
"We are used to thinking of fundamental particles (like electrons) as point-like 0-dimensional objects. A generalization of this is fundamental strings which are 1-dimensional objects."
(Please note that the bold-type is provided by the author himself.).

M-theory is founded upon a 2-dimensional membrane.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
Lifegazer
Originally posted by (Q)
Lifegazer: reality emanates from Mind.

I get it now – you’re one of those “nothing-exists-outside-of-the-minds-eye” and “reality-is-just-a-perception-and-illusion-of-the-mind” proponents.

That argument is completely moot. It isn’t even philosophy – its simply psycho-babble.
Why's it not philosophy? Philosophy is about making conclusions via reason. What you mean, is that it's not a philosophy which you are willing to entertain or address. In fact, you can't even be bothered to address my posts about concepts. Are you here to debate, or to preach?
If YOUR reality emanates from YOUR mind, whom then are you arguing with - yourself?
I haven't said that reality emanates from 'my' mind. I've said that all reality emanates within a single Mind. That would include 'my' reality, too.
 
  • #28
3,762
2
Originally posted by Lifegazer
I know it via reason.
Let's imagine a 2-dimensional membrane, for example. It's easy to imagine one. It's easy to coneptualise one.
But now, let's talk about the [purple]tangible reality[/purple] of such a concept. Can such a thing exist beyond our perception/imagination of it?
When you consider that a 2-dimensional membrane has length and breadth - but zero width - then it becomes clear that it cannot exist beyond the mind's imagination. **For how can such a membrane have tangible existence (external existence), if it has zero thickness?**

By reason, it cannot. A 2-dimensional entity can only exist within the mind, as a concept.
Again, just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not real. Think, lifegazer! All of the great scientific theories have challenged our "normal" way of percieving the universe. You do not have to understand String Theory, for it to be real.
 
  • #29
Lifegazer
Originally posted by Mentat
Again, just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not real.
What?!?!
Mentat, I doubt very much whether you even understood my post.
What sort of a response is this?
Think, lifegazer! All of the great scientific theories have challenged our "normal" way of percieving the universe. You do not have to understand String Theory, for it to be real. [/B]
Well like I said: it could be a credible theory. But ultimately, it's a theory which proves that intangible concepts of the mind are active in the construction of our 4-dimensional awareness. That's all it is.
 
  • #30
(Q)
143
0
Lifegazer

I haven't said that reality emanates from 'my' mind. I've said that all reality emanates within a single Mind.

With that statement, you have gone beyond psychobabble. I didn’t think that was possible. Congratulations!

In fact, you can't even be bothered to address my posts about concepts. Are you here to debate, or to preach?

I’m here to discuss topics based in reality, which is clearly out of your realm. It’s not possible to debate anything with someone who believes reality emanates from a single mind.

Whatever concept you’re trying to portray is not philosophy – it is nothing more than delusion.

Philosophy is about making conclusions via reason.

Reason - A justification for something existing or happening; the state of having good sense and sound judgment.

Can you see how your so-called “reality emanates within a single Mind” concept has nothing to do with reason?
 
  • #31
3,762
2
Originally posted by Lifegazer
What?!?!
Mentat, I doubt very much whether you even understood my post.
What sort of a response is this?
I understood your posts perfectly, especially the parts where you stated that 2d membranes could not exist. This may be what you believe, but you shouldn't try to make others believe the same way. You seem to believe that, just because you don't believe in 1-d or 2-d objects, they cannot exist, but this is not necessarily the truth.
 
  • #32
Eh
718
1
Originally posted by Lifegazer
M-theory is founded upon a 2-dimensional membrane.
In actual, M theory has been called a democracy of branes. It is not founded on the concept of 2 dimensional branes, but branes of ALL spatial extents. A 1 dimensional brane (a string) is no more fundemental than a 2D or 3D brane, going all the way up to a 10D brane.
 
  • #33
Lifegazer
Originally posted by Mentat
I understood your posts perfectly, especially the parts where you stated that 2d membranes could not exist. This may be what you believe, but you shouldn't try to make others believe the same way.

Come on Mentat - I presented reason for my conclusion. It's got nothing to do with "belief".
A 2-d membrane has zero thickness = it's impossible for such a membrane to have a tangible reality unto itself.
You seem to believe that, just because you don't believe in 1-d or 2-d objects, they cannot exist, but this is not necessarily the truth.
Okay Mentat... I'm listening. Explain to this forum how a 2-dimensional membrane can exist if it has zero thickness.
And if you cannot do it, then accept the reason of my argument.
 
  • #34
Lifegazer
Originally posted by Eh
In actual, M theory has been called a democracy of branes. It is not founded on the concept of 2 dimensional branes, but branes of ALL spatial extents. A 1 dimensional brane (a string) is no more fundemental than a 2D or 3D brane, going all the way up to a 10D brane.
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html

... Scroll down to just over halfway. The back-drop to this 1-dimensional activity is presented as a 2-dimensional surface - in this case, a sphere.
 
  • #35
(Q)
143
0
Lifegazer

Explain to this forum how a 2-dimensional membrane can exist if it has zero thickness.
And if you cannot do it, then accept the reason of my argument.


Appeal to Ignorance Argument. Using your logic, if you cannot explain how to fly the space shuttle, then accept my reasoning that no one is able to fly the space shuttle in space.

Allow me to introduce you to the concept of fallacies. Your arguments are littered with them.

http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/mainpage.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
3,762
2
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Come on Mentat - I presented reason for my conclusion. It's got nothing to do with "belief".
A 2-d membrane has zero thickness = it's impossible for such a membrane to have a tangible reality unto itself.

Okay Mentat... I'm listening. Explain to this forum how a 2-dimensional membrane can exist if it has zero thickness.
And if you cannot do it, then accept the reason of my argument.
The answer is the same as that of, "How can a three-dimensional object exist, without extent in the fourth spacial dimension?". It just does.

Side note: I did not mean to offend you, by calling it a belief, but you didn't actually present a good reason for me to believe as you do.
 
  • #37
Lifegazer
Originally posted by (Q)
Lifegazer: Explain to this forum how a 2-dimensional membrane can exist if it has zero thickness.
And if you cannot do it, then accept the reason of my argument.


Appeal to Ignorance Argument. Using your logic, if you cannot explain how to fly the space shuttle, then accept my reasoning that no one is able to fly the space shuttle in space.
It's not an appeal to ignorance. I have presented my reasons for showing why the aforementioned concepts cannot be 'real' unto themselves - reasons which, so far, not a single person here has addressed.
Given that people such as yourself refuse to address my own reason, I presented Mentat/anyone with the opportunity to support (using reason) their own belief - that concepts can exist unto themselves, externally to the mind.
And what do I get? An evasive manoeuvre about appeals to ignorance.
Allow me to introduce you to the concept of fallacies. Your arguments are littered with them.
Name them. Explain why they are fallacies. Say something meaningful.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
Lifegazer
Originally posted by Mentat
The answer is the same as that of, "How can a three-dimensional object exist, without extent in the fourth spacial dimension?". It just does.
You call this a reasoned response?
Actually, a 3-dimensional object can exist without the dimension of time. But a 3-dimensional-object cannot change without the dimension of time.
Side note: I did not mean to offend you, by calling it a belief, but you didn't actually present a good reason for me to believe as you do.
Really? You think that a plain with zero thickness can exist unto itself? You need to think about this carefully. How can a plain actually exist, if it has zero thickness? Answer the question.
 
  • #39
Lifegazer
Forget 'membranes' if you want. Let's talk about 1-dimensional strings... which are fundamental to M-theory.
How can something exist as a material entity if it has zero width and zero breadth?
 
  • #40
Eh
718
1
I don't know, it's kind of like a 5 dimensional person demanding, "how can a material object exist with zero (insert name for measure of 4th dimension here) and zero (insert name for measure of 5th dimension here)?"

Mathematically (logic) it seems that we have nothing to refute the idea, no matter how repulsive the concept of 1 dimensional objects seems. Unfortunately, string theory is not the only quantum gravity candidate that attempts to build a theory based on 1 dimensional "things".
 
  • #41
Lifegazer
Originally posted by Eh
I don't know, it's kind of like a 5 dimensional person demanding, "how can a material object exist with zero (insert name for measure of 4th dimension here) and zero (insert name for measure of 5th dimension here)?"
A 1-dimensional entity can have no material/tangible reality unto itself.
Imagine a 1-dimensional line. It can exist within your mind. But in 'reality', such a line has zero thickness and zero breadth. Result: Such lines are a concept of our imagination.
Consequence: There is no reasonable way to posit the external-existence of any such strings. They can only exist as thoughts.
 
  • #42
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,500
8
I looked at the websites provided by LG and nowhere in them did I find string theory presented. It seems that LG is still chasing geese.

Some points:

On Tangibility
One has to ask, exactly what does LG require for something to be ‘tangible’? We know from experience that a priori arguments cannot settle the issue. We cannot dictate to the universe what it is to qualify for existence, the universe dictates it to us. The first major revision in our concept of tangibility came when we learned that atoms are mostly empty space. Who’s to say that this will not be another radical revision (indeed, it promises to be)?

On 1D Strings
Recall that the particles of QFT are 0-dimensional. However, when one looks closer, one sees that they are dressed in a cloud of virtual particles. Does anyone here know whether strings are similarly dressed? Does anyone know if there is some other phenomenon at work?

On LG’s Argument
Let's imagine a 2-dimensional membrane, for example. It's easy to imagine one. It's easy to coneptualise one.
But now, let's talk about the tangible reality of such a concept. Can such a thing exist beyond our perception/imagination of it?
When you consider that a 2-dimensional membrane has length and breadth - but zero width - then it becomes clear that it cannot exist beyond the mind's imagination. **For how can such a membrane have tangible existence (external existence), if it has zero thickness?**

By reason, it cannot. A 2-dimensional entity can only exist within the mind, as a concept.


LOL

Your argument is basically:
1. Imagine a 2D membrane.
2. Can it exist beyond our imagination?
3. It cannot exist beyond our imagination.
4. For how can it exist beyond our imagination?
5. Therefore, it cannot exist beyond our imagination.

That is an appeal to ignorance. I know I have told you this about a half dozen times, but I am going to tell you again. The appeal to ignorance argument is as follows:

X has never been proven/disproven. Therefore, X (does not exist)/exists.

You just did it up there, but you were a lot more longwinded about it.

Typical LG Argumentaion
I once tried to explain to LG why he does not convince anyone of anything. I explained that the basic program of his debate style is as follows:

1. Make an invalid argument (typically using the fallacies of appeal to ignorance, appeal to incredulity, or equivocation).
2. Insist that he is right until someone proves him wrong (and even this does not matter, because he does not accept any disproofs of his ideas).


Is that happening here I wonder?

Mentat: “I understood your posts perfectly, especially the parts where you stated that 2d membranes could not exist. This may be what you believe, but you shouldn't try to make others believe the same way.

LG: Come on Mentat - I presented reason for my conclusion. It's got nothing to do with "belief".

Incorrect. You presented questions and assertions, nothing more. No valid argument was ever presented.

Mentat: You seem to believe that, just because you don't believe in 1-d or 2-d objects, they cannot exist, but this is not necessarily the truth.

LG: Okay Mentat... I'm listening. Explain to this forum how a 2-dimensional membrane can exist if it has zero thickness. And if you cannot do it, then accept the reason of my argument.

This is shifting the onus of proof. You failed to make your case, and you will cling to it as long as no one proves the opposite. That is not logic, that is subtrefuge.

Mentat: The answer is the same as that of, "How can a three-dimensional object exist, without extent in the fourth spacial dimension?". It just does.

LG: You call this a reasoned response?

Why not? It’s every bit as reasoned as your argument, and it has the added bonus of being consistent with the known principle that the universe tells us how it behaves, not the other way around.

Mentat: Side note: I did not mean to offend you, by calling it a belief, but you didn't actually present a good reason for me to believe as you do.

LG: Really? You think that a plain with zero thickness can exist unto itself? You need to think about this carefully. How can a plain actually exist, if it has zero thickness? Answer the question.

This is another attempt to shift the onus of proof. LG, you are the one who needs to show why it is impossible for such a thing to exist. Answer the question.

LG, people are responding to your “argument” (and I use that term very loosely in your case), and there are no evasive maneuvers going on here, except the ones you are pulling! You have been squirming for two pages now, and getting quite indignant about it. You need to be less dense and more open to the possibility that you are wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
Lifegazer
Originally posted by Tom
I looked at the websites provided by LG and nowhere in them did I find string theory presented. It seems that LG is still chasing geese.
Are you saying that I made-up those extracts I pointed-out?
On Tangibility
One has to ask, exactly what does LG require for something to be ‘tangible’?
It would have to have a minimum of 3 spatial dimensions.
We know from experience that a priori arguments cannot settle the issue. We cannot dictate to the universe what it is to qualify for existence, the universe dictates it to us.
If a line (string) has no other extension in space than its own length, then it cannot have any extension in space. For a line without any other dimensions of extension cannot have substance unto itself. It's an imaginary-line... a conceptual-string.
LOL

Your argument is basically:
1. Imagine a 2D membrane.
2. Can it exist beyond our imagination?
3. It cannot exist beyond our imagination.
4. For how can it exist beyond our imagination?
5. Therefore, it cannot exist beyond our imagination.
Incorrect, since you fail to mention the reasons/examples I have provided in order to state '3'.
That is an appeal to ignorance.
I gave reasons for what I stated. They were (and have still been) ignored or evaded. I then invited reasoned explanation to counter my argument by explaining how such entities can exist unto themselves. Again, nothing has been forthcoming.
There is only one reasoned point-of-view here, and that has been my own. Responses have been largely evasive and defensive. Such as your own, here.
You need to be less dense and more open to the possibility that you are wrong. [/B]
How can I be open to any arguments which might counter my own, when none have been forthcoming?
 
  • #44
(Q)
143
0
Lifegazer

I have presented my reasons for showing why the aforementioned concepts cannot be 'real' unto themselves - reasons which, so far, not a single person here has addressed.

No one has addressed your reasons because they are based on assumptions that you alone seem to comprehend.

If anyone here understands the mathematics behind string theory, and I doubt anyone here does, they would still not be able to explain them to you simply because you don’t understand the mathematics nor probably ever will.

How is it possible for anyone to accept your so-called “reasoning” when you are unable to comprehend an answer to a question that you also do not comprehend?

I presented Mentat/anyone with the opportunity to support (using reason) their own belief - that concepts can exist unto themselves, externally to the mind.
And what do I get? An evasive manoeuvre about appeals to ignorance.


The pointing out of a fallacious argument is not evasive - it is necessary. No one is going to argue a pet theory based on fallacies and nonsense. You can rant all you want and declare yourself the “Big Kahuna” simply because you think no one can produce a valid argument that refutes reality exists within a single mind.

Why should anyone waste his or her time arguing someone else’s delusions?

You’re clearly way out of your league.
 
  • #45
(Q)
143
0
Lifegazer

A 1-dimensional entity can have no material/tangible reality unto itself.
Imagine a 1-dimensional line. It can exist within your mind. But in 'reality', such a line has zero thickness and zero breadth. Result: Such lines are a concept of our imagination.
Consequence: There is no reasonable way to posit the external-existence of any such strings. They can only exist as thoughts.


Strawman argument – Appeal to Ignorance -more fallacies.
 
  • #46
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,500
8
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Are you saying that I made-up those extracts I pointed-out?
Of course not. I said that I went through the websites. I also raised questions about them.

It (edit-the requirement for tangibility) would have to have a minimum of 3 spatial dimensions.
Well, there you have it. You've assumed your conclusion in your definition of "tangible".

If a line (string) has no other extension in space than its own length, then it cannot have any extension in space. For a line without any other dimensions of extension cannot have substance unto itself. It's an imaginary-line... a conceptual-string.
You are just asserting again, because your conclusion comes from your definition of "tangible".

Incorrect, since you fail to mention the reasons/examples I have provided in order to state '3'.
LG, I presented the whole argument. You have presented no reasons or examples.

I gave reasons for what I stated. They were (and have still been) ignored or evaded. I then invited reasoned explanation to counter my argument by explaining how such entities can exist unto themselves.
LG, can't you tell the difference between an assertion and an argument? Your entire style of debating is exactly as I said it is. You construct an invalid argument (or in this case, no argument at all!) and then maintain a skeptical position on the opposite of your conclusion. That is not logic! That is appeal to ignorance.

Again, nothing has been forthcoming.
There is only one reasoned point-of-view here, and that has been my own. Responses have been largely evasive and defensive. Such as your own, here.
You are so biased, it is unbelievable. LG, I analyzed your argument, and found that it is complete BS. I explained in detail why. The only evading here is being done by you. When you say that you have 'reasoned' your conclusion when you have not presented a valid argument, you just make yourself look dumb.

How can I be open to any arguments which might counter my own, when none have been forthcoming?
Appeal to ignorance, once again.

You are hopeless.

You're free to cling to your little religion if you want, but stop clubbing people over the head when they don't want to go to your church. When you start being logical, then you will gain some credibility.
 
  • #47
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
827
15
please continue your string theory discussion here...
 
  • #48
3,762
2
Originally posted by Lifegazer
You call this a reasoned response?
Actually, a 3-dimensional object can exist without the dimension of time. But a 3-dimensional-object cannot change without the dimension of time.

Really? You think that a plain with zero thickness can exist unto itself? You need to think about this carefully. How can a plain actually exist, if it has zero thickness? Answer the question.
Did you read my post at all? I said "fourth spacial dimension! How can something exist without extent in the fourth spacial dimension? The answer is, it just does. And thus, that is the answer to "how can something exist, without extent into the 3 dimension?".
 
  • #49
Lifegazer
Originally posted by Tom
Of course not. I said that I went through the websites. I also raised questions about them.
Then my point is made: string-theories are founded upon 1-dimensional entities. This is what science is saying - not me.

My argument studys this premise. It asks what it actually means to be a 1-dimensional being (i.e., a string... or, for practical purposes: a line).
What it means - by reason - is that a singular point is extended/stretched in accordance with that dimension - in this case, 'length'. The resultant entity is represented as a line (a string).
... Now; the important question follows: How can a line (or a string) actually have an extended existence - upon a length - whilst having zero-width and zero-breadth?
The correct answer is not "We cannot know.", or "There's no way of knowing."; for we have reason to resolve this issue.
And reason states that a real string cannot have substance, unless it has breadth and width amongst its length.
Remember; we're considering a tangible string, where both ends are connected by a line of itself. But if that line has zero breadth and zero width - and zero any other dimension, as 1-dimensional would imply - then that 'string' cannot have substance. A length with zero thickness of any dimension, can only exist in the mind.
LG, can't you tell the difference between an assertion and an argument?
Is the argument above, not clear? Do I not give reasons for my conclusions? You might disagree with those reasons, but you cannot call them assertions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
Lifegazer
With my last post in mind, I should add that if string-theory is correct, that physics is advocating explaining material-reality via concepts borne of the Mind. I.e.; physics is seeking to explain the origins of our perceived universe via things which emanate from the mind. Essentially, this means that physics is positing the theory that our perceived reality emanates from Mind.
 

Related Threads on Lifegazer Philosophy 101 (from Faith in Science)

  • Poll
  • Last Post
4
Replies
76
Views
12K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
90
Views
6K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
135
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
819
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Top