Philosophy Now Forum

HexHammer wrote:Only after I wrote my last post, I saw that you tried to correct mr Grumpy and he admitted kinda I was right in a extremely subtle way, so there was no need for the post and I deleted it.

Who is Mr. Grumpy?

Harbal wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Only after I wrote my last post, I saw that you tried to correct mr Grumpy and he admitted kinda I was right in a extremely subtle way, so there was no need for the post and I deleted it.

Who is Mr. Grumpy?

I believe you are, I could call you mr Lashback instead?

HexHammer wrote: I believe you are, I could call you mr Lashback instead?

So you're calling me Mr. Grumpy? That's a bit rich, I mean you ain't exactly Coco the clown yourself.

I love grumpy people. Just another thing the yanks have ruined. I mean, do they really have to be so fucking manic ALL the time???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukhc6X1ryBE
No one can do 'grumpy old misery-guts' like the English, although Bernie Sanders did a pretty good 'grumpy' (at least he was real).

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I love grumpy people. Just another thing the yanks have ruined. I mean, do they really have to be so fucking manic ALL the time???

Oh yes, there's nothing worse than being around "up beat" people when you're determined to find fault with everything.

Harbal wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I love grumpy people. Just another thing the yanks have ruined. I mean, do they really have to be so fucking manic ALL the time???

Oh yes, there's nothing worse than being around "up beat" people when you're determined to find fault with everything.

Nothing worse than being around phonies either. Old fart.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: As far as I can decipher your OP simply boils down to the old fundy 'argument' 'you can't get something from nothing'. There might never have been a 'nothing' for all you know. You are stating as fact things that you know little about. When you get down to the tiniest particles so far discovered there really is essentially 'nothing' but maths, (and there are about as many quantum theories as there are quantum physicists, because they just don't KNOW yet).

It's a shame our scientific posters aren't around to deal with bollocks any more. Blaggard was banned and Obvious Leo sadly passed away.

You don't need scientist to understand my problem: First, there is for sure irreducible things that make up things. That is true because otherwise anything can be divided to infinitum which is logically impossible since it takes forever to divide thing into its substitutes hence it takes for ever to build up a thing from its substitutes. So we can really obtain irreducible things by finite amount of dividing.

Now, we have a problem in our hand: Irreducible things in principle are not made of anything so it is reasonable to argue that they could not be created and annihilated. If this is true then how the stuff we experience could come from? You can argue that irreducible things can pop in and out. You can again have nothing net to experience unless irreducible things persist to exist after popping in. So the question is why they should persist to exist?

bahman wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: As far as I can decipher your OP simply boils down to the old fundy 'argument' 'you can't get something from nothing'. There might never have been a 'nothing' for all you know. You are stating as fact things that you know little about. When you get down to the tiniest particles so far discovered there really is essentially 'nothing' but maths, (and there are about as many quantum theories as there are quantum physicists, because they just don't KNOW yet).

It's a shame our scientific posters aren't around to deal with bollocks any more. Blaggard was banned and Obvious Leo sadly passed away.

You don't need scientist to understand my problem: First, there is for sure irreducible things that make up things. That is true because otherwise anything can be divided to infinitum which is logically impossible since it takes forever to divide thing into its substitutes hence it takes for ever to build up a thing from its substitutes. So we can really obtain irreducible things by finite amount of dividing.

Now, we have a problem in our hand: Irreducible things in principle are not made of anything so it is reasonable to argue that they could not be created and annihilated. If this is true then how the stuff we experience could come from? You can argue that irreducible things can pop in and out. You can again have nothing net to experience unless irreducible things persist to exist after popping in. So the question is why they should persist to exist?

Keep repeating yourself. You don't make any more sense now than you did the first time.

bahman wrote:You can again have nothing net to experience unless irreducible things persist to exist after popping in. So the question is why they should persist to exist?

That's kind of like the "Why is there something rather than nothing?" question, which seems to assume that the "default" is that there'd be nothing, and we need to explain why there isn't. But why would that be the default? Likewise, why would it be the fault that an irreducible thing that popped into existence shouldn't persist for any arbitrary length of time?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Nothing worse than being around phonies either. Old fart.

I was talking about me, not you. Good God, talk about fiery tempered.

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:You can again have nothing net to experience unless irreducible things persist to exist after popping in. So the question is why they should persist to exist?

That's kind of like the "Why is there something rather than nothing?" question, which seems to assume that the "default" is that there'd be nothing, and we need to explain why there isn't. But why would that be the default? Likewise, why would it be the fault that an irreducible thing that popped into existence shouldn't persist for any arbitrary length of time?

Yes the default has to be there is something, as that's the only case where the question can even exist.

Harbal wrote:

HexHammer wrote: I believe you are, I could call you mr Lashback instead?

So you're calling me Mr. Grumpy? That's a bit rich, I mean you ain't exactly Coco the clown yourself.

Harbal wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Nothing worse than being around phonies either. Old fart.

I was talking about me, not you. Good God, talk about fiery tempered.

I did think sarcasm was a bit out of character for you. I was ready to spank you senseless.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I did think sarcasm was a bit out of character for you. I was ready to spank you senseless.

There are already enough senseless people on this forum, VT, so I think you should just let me off with a warning.

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote: You can again have nothing net to experience unless irreducible things persist to exist after popping in. So the question is why they should persist to exist?

That's kind of like the "Why is there something rather than nothing?" question, which seems to assume that the "default" is that there'd be nothing, and we need to explain why there isn't. But why would that be the default? Likewise, why would it be the fault that an irreducible thing that popped into existence shouldn't persist for any arbitrary length of time?

The "default" should be noting rather than something. Why? Because something should exist forever if the "default" is something rather than nothing which this is problematic. Something cannot simply exist eternally. This simply means that you need a beginning to allow something to exist.