Philosophy Now Forum

Kuznetzova wrote:So NDEs are fully explained by the "soul going outside the body".
And organic life on earth is evidence of "divine creation."

I think that pretty much summarizes this thread. Strange that it should take 25 pages to say it.

They are fully explained by any number of theories only one of which requires souls and it does take 25 pages to say it because some people will look anywhere for evidence of the soul, even though there isn't any. Any more than there is evidence God exists, the soul and God are of course matters of faith not of science or evidence.

Blaggard wrote:They are fully explained by any number of theories.......

By George, I think he's got it! We'll make a philosopher of you yet, Blaggard.

It is all a matter of interpretation.
There are various possible theories for everything.
The point is, which one do you choose?
Is it LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC to choose the materialistic one when every evidence shows that consciousness can exist without a functioning brain?

skakos wrote:It is all a matter of interpretation.
There are various possible theories for everything.
The point is, which one do you choose?

Which ever one you fancy, but try to remember that you are making metaphysical choices for essentially aesthetic reasons that only a blithering idiot would go to war over. That said, there's a lot of blithering idiots.

skakos wrote:Is it LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC to choose the materialistic one when every evidence shows that consciousness can exist without a functioning brain?

Wink noted.

"every evidence"

None of which you've offered for consideration.

Again: anecdotes and passion are not evidence.

Cerveny wrote:Excuse me, but as for the limits of science, let me repeat the previous thread again
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9654&start=17

The difference between mathematics and physics is that in "physics" always exists such n, that (simply put - as one countryman says) 10 ^ n = 10 ^ n ± 1. Just because of the delay of reaction. This detail is the originator of irreversible phenomena and the essence of thermodynamics at all.

henry quirk wrote:"every evidence"

None of which you've offered for consideration.

Again: anecdotes and passion are not evidence.

My friend, there are numerous sources about that...

http://harmonia-philosophica.blogspot.g ... g-god.html

Cerveny wrote:

Cerveny wrote:Excuse me, but as for the limits of science, let me repeat the previous thread again
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9654&start=17

The difference between mathematics and physics is that in "physics" always exists such n, that (simply put - as one countryman says) 10 ^ n = 10 ^ n ± 1. Just because of the delay of reaction. This detail is the originator of irreversible phenomena and the essence of thermodynamics at all.

And that ignores the whole field of quantum mechanics of course which states that given x within infinite limits it is not possible to determine y only to set expectation values on it within realistic degrees of freedom. You presumably mean et al, as in and others, or including others. but meh that's me just being pedantic.

Thermodynamics is not the only physical law that is not reversible, radioactive decay is also CPT variant. But there you go.

In physics if you were to use the chain rule for example, that is a rule of derivatives in calculus, to explain a quantum mechanical system you would end up with nonsense if you did not take account of the stochastic mechanics involved in the system or put better you used calculus as a general rule without setting the parameters up as being variant and possibly somewhat random, it's only in maths as a general rule the precise values of a random system are not resolvable in normal differential equations, there are equations that can deal with probability but as a rule they are involved with what we call partial differential equations, or statistical distributions in PDE systems, which are related to change from 0 or rather the relationship of the equation as it supposes a statistic that at some point could in theory approach 0, than a specific value, is able to be pumped out in a way that is interesting in and of itself. And of course pure maths and applied maths are very different beasts.



Assumes the system is purely adjunct within infinite limits that are deterministic or linear and smoothe, not with an eigenvector or eiegenvalue based on a more probable system including the vectors of the imaginary plane in probability with time. The operators in that system need not be adjunct they just must be consistent with the experiment. All classical systems are of course defined as being smooth and linear for all cases of x in y or indeed in time, quantum systems are not though.

"physics" always exists such n, that (simply put - as one countryman says) 10 ^ n = 10 ^ n ± 1

This is not the case even in a classical system this maths is not relevant. This sounds like gibberish to me..?

10^n=10^n in all cases of x and n, if it did have a + or minus notation it would neither be physics or maths, although of course sometimes the results are prefaced with an uncertainty, but then Heisenberg, look it up and it's already included in any equation denoting a system in physics, or if not, tacked on the end as a note that this could be out by this much in a probability system or in by this much according to what is known as the measurement problem, and I don't feel the need to blather on about that. Suffice to say such a definition of the either the number system or anything in physics hence based on such a number system is not relevant, and I am really unsure where this odd notation: 10 ^ n = 10 ^ n ± 1 originates since as far as I know no physicist or mathematician would use it...

Cerveny wrote:

Cerveny wrote:Excuse me, but as for the limits of science, let me repeat the previous thread again :(
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9654&start=17

The difference between mathematics and physics is that in "physics" always exists such n, that (simply put - as one countryman says) 10 ^ n = 10 ^ n ± 1. Just because of the delay of reaction. This detail is the originator of irreversible phenomena and the essence of thermodynamics at all.

Maybe God does not have available sufficient computing power :( Maybe he does not like iteration of unstable solutions due to lack of time :)

Cerveny wrote:

Cerveny wrote:

Cerveny wrote:Excuse me, but as for the limits of science, let me repeat the previous thread again
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9654&start=17

The difference between mathematics and physics is that in "physics" always exists such n, that (simply put - as one countryman says) 10 ^ n = 10 ^ n ± 1. Just because of the delay of reaction. This detail is the originator of irreversible phenomena and the essence of thermodynamics at all.

Maybe God does not have available sufficient computing power Maybe he does not like iteration of unstable solutions due to lack of time

I think Leplace's Demon aught to be mentioned hence and there.

Quoting yourself though, that's an odd way of indulging in a dialogue.

We all speak to our self.
But... whom do we speak to?
Self reference is the key to our existence!

Blaggard wrote:

"physics" always exists such n, that (simply put - as one countryman says) 10 ^ n = 10 ^ n ± 1

This is not the case even in a classical system this maths is not relevant. This sounds like gibberish to me..?
...

That's just the difference between mathematics and physics. "Physics" does not manage (no time) to calculate accurately. Integrated information exchange between dynamically interacting multi system runs at reduced speed. Physics does not have memories like math, let's say the exchange of information between interacting systems occurs in "waves" ... Let's say that the only stationary states are the "exact"...

Blaggard wrote: ...I am really unsure where this odd notation: 10 ^ n = 10 ^ n ± 1 originates since as far as I know no physicist or mathematician would use it...

Someone has to start :)
It is merely a symbolic expression - of course.
I would expect more imagination, creativity and sense of reality - but this is a general pain of today's physi-mathematicians :(

"My friend..."

*'I'm not your friend, buddy...'


#

"there are numerous sources about that"

Then you should post the relevant material 'here' instead of sending me off to wade through crap off-site...mebbe you got the time to fuck around on-line, but I don't.

I ain't gettin' paid squat to be here...do you and me a favor: don't direct, post; don't allude, state.









*'...I'm not your buddy, pal...I'm not your pal, guy...I'm not your guy, friend...I'm not your friend, pal...I'm not your pal, buddy', and on and on and on...

@HQ SP quotes FTW.

Cerveny wrote:

Blaggard wrote:

"physics" always exists such n, that (simply put - as one countryman says) 10 ^ n = 10 ^ n ± 1

This is not the case even in a classical system this maths is not relevant. This sounds like gibberish to me..?
...

That's just the difference between mathematics and physics. "Physics" does not manage (no time) to calculate accurately. Integrated information exchange between dynamically interacting multi system runs at reduced speed. Physics does not have memories like math, let's say the exchange of information between interacting systems occurs in "waves" ... Let's say that the only stationary states are the "exact"...

Blaggard wrote: ...I am really unsure where this odd notation: 10 ^ n = 10 ^ n ± 1 originates since as far as I know no physicist or mathematician would use it...

Someone has to start
It is merely a symbolic expression - of course.
I would expect more imagination, creativity and sense of reality - but this is a general pain of today's physi-mathematicians

I'm sorry but this post makes no sense at all. Do you think that maths and physics are entities that are not mutually inclusive or... because that just sounded like more gibberish, no offence.

It's also a general pain when someone clearly hasn't studied the subject well enough to critique it uses bad maths and bad science to make straw men, but you don't see me banging on about it post after post.

Someone has to start to make maths and they already did but using equations that are clearly just nothing to do with maths or hence science for that matter are not helping... no offence but I do not think I would be out of line if I suggested if you are going to attack anything, be it philosophy, or a debate about ontology or Psychology, the price of fish, or physics or any science, wouldn't it behoove you to arm yourself with the right weapons, not run in like a mad berzerker with a banana and a dream?