Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:Physics says no such thing.

You're looking for verbatim quotes so you can falsely claim you're not being responded to. Physicists do say it in terms that respond to your assertions.

PhilX

I'm pointing out that you can not cite ANY physics that states ANYTHING AT ALL resembling or implying "there are no solids." Because it says no such thing. You're some combination of full of shit, crazy, trolling and/or ignorant (a la being unaware of what physics does indeed say) or stupid (a la not being able to understand what you're reading) rather.

You're dead wrong. QM says there is no empty space because the probability of matter being in any specific spot is less than 100%, meaning you're full of shit.

PhilX

Noax wrote:Phil, Your claim seems to be that science class teaches that matter is immaterial, which is wrong by definition. A brain is not a solid

??? Not you too.

it is made of different materials which makes it a mostly liquid emulsion.

"Different materials" isn't sufficient for "liquid emulsion," and "different liquids" isn't even sufficient for a liquid emulsion. Brains do contain liquids--like blood, for example, but the organ itself is a solid, not a liquid.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:You're dead wrong. QM says there is no empty space because the probability of matter being in any specific spot is less than 100%

Let's say that qm said that--it doesn't, really, but just pretend that it does for a moment.

What the heck would that have to do with whether there are solids or not?

(Seriously, this is like trying to communicate with a gaggle of incredibly arrogant complete retards.)

Terrapin Station wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:You're dead wrong. QM says there is no empty space because the probability of matter being in any specific spot is less than 100%

Let's say that qm said that--it doesn't, really, but just pretend that it does for a moment.

What the heck would that have to do with whether there are solids or not?

(Seriously, this is like trying to communicate with a gaggle of incredibly arrogant complete retards.)

Here's an online definition:

"One of four main states of matter, in which the molecules vibrate about fixed positions and cannot migrate to other positions in the substance." Atoms and subatomic particles aren't fixed per QM. Prove otherwise.
Find something online that contradicts me (let me caution you I don't respect assholes that resort to name calling).

PhilX

Terrapin Station wrote: Saying that this amounts to saying that there are no solids or that solidity is an illusion is akin to saying that there is no moon, or that the moon is an illusion, just because the notion that the moon is made of green cheese turns out to be mistaken.

Good for you, redefine solid to suit your own use of the term, and then use that idiosyncratic definition to shore up your week argument.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:"One of four main states of matter, in which the molecules vibrate about fixed positions and cannot migrate to other positions in the substance." Atoms and subatomic particles aren't fixed per QM.

Even if I were to agree with everything here (and if I were to decide to ignore that you're conflating "vibrating about fixed positions" and "fixed positions," which I will ignore for now), what the heck does one have to do with the other? Are you not familiar with the difference between molecules, atoms and subatomic particles? Are you not at all familiar with the concept of decoherence?

I don't respect assholes that resort to name calling

Haha, as if I have one shred of respect for you or what you'd think about anything, and don't just think that you're a buffoon who is hopefully trolling rather than being as stupid as you'd be pretending to be.

thedoc wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: Saying that this amounts to saying that there are no solids or that solidity is an illusion is akin to saying that there is no moon, or that the moon is an illusion, just because the notion that the moon is made of green cheese turns out to be mistaken.

Good for you, redefine solid to suit your own use of the term, and then use that idiosyncratic definition to shore up your week argument.

You're appealing to the naive, pre-scientific, "folk notion" of "solid" as the correct one or something?

Philosophy Explorer wrote: (let me caution you I don't respect assholes that resort to name calling).

PhilX

Are you saying that you don't respect yourself, or don't you see the contradiction.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:"One of four main states of matter, in which the molecules vibrate about fixed positions and cannot migrate to other positions in the substance." Atoms and subatomic particles aren't fixed per QM.

Even if I were to agree with everything here, what the heck does one have to do with the other? Are you not familiar with the difference between molecules, atoms and subatomic particles? Are you not at all familiar with the concept of decoherence?

I don't respect assholes that resort to name calling

Haha, as if I have one shred of respect for you or what you'd think about anything, and don't just think that you're a buffoon who is hopefully trolling rather than as stupid as you're pretending to be.

Fool, all molecules and atoms are made up of subatomic particles (btw I know you're not pretending to be stupid).

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:"One of four main states of matter, in which the molecules vibrate about fixed positions and cannot migrate to other positions in the substance." Atoms and subatomic particles aren't fixed per QM.

Even if I were to agree with everything here, what the heck does one have to do with the other? Are you not familiar with the difference between molecules, atoms and subatomic particles? Are you not at all familiar with the concept of decoherence?

I don't respect assholes that resort to name calling

Haha, as if I have one shred of respect for you or what you'd think about anything, and don't just think that you're a buffoon who is hopefully trolling rather than as stupid as you're pretending to be.

Fool, all molecules and atoms are made up of subatomic particles (btw I know you're not pretending to be stupid).

PhilX

Right, so you're not familiar with decoherence. You're really in a position to lecture about qm.

Again, this isn't even mentioning that you're not understanding what you're reading re "fixed positions" and the like. You don't at all understand HUP for example.

Terrapin Station wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: Saying that this amounts to saying that there are no solids or that solidity is an illusion is akin to saying that there is no moon, or that the moon is an illusion, just because the notion that the moon is made of green cheese turns out to be mistaken.

Good for you, redefine solid to suit your own use of the term, and then use that idiosyncratic definition to shore up your week argument.

You're appealing to the naive, pre-scientific, "folk notion" of "solid" as the correct one or something?

Now you are resorting to a kind of ad hominem. (can I put that on my resume?)

thedoc wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

thedoc wrote:
Good for you, redefine solid to suit your own use of the term, and then use that idiosyncratic definition to shore up your week argument.

You're appealing to the naive, pre-scientific, "folk notion" of "solid" as the correct one or something?

Now you are resorting to a kind of ad hominem. (can I put that on my resume?)

You can put that you don't understand what ad hominems are on your resume if you like, sure. You could put whatever you like on your resume.

Terrapin Station wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:You're appealing to the naive, pre-scientific, "folk notion" of "solid" as the correct one or something?

Now you are resorting to a kind of ad hominem. (can I put that on my resume?)

You can put that you don't understand what ad hominems are on your resume if you like, sure. You could put whatever you like on your resume.

I'll just put down that you don't understand everything you think you know.

thedoc wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

thedoc wrote:
Now you are resorting to a kind of ad hominem. (can I put that on my resume?)

You can put that you don't understand what ad hominems are on your resume if you like, sure. You could put whatever you like on your resume.

I'll just put down that you don't understand everything you think you know.

Yeah, that would probably make a lot of sense to put on a resume.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:Even if I were to agree with everything here, what the heck does one have to do with the other? Are you not familiar with the difference between molecules, atoms and subatomic particles? Are you not at all familiar with the concept of decoherence?Haha, as if I have one shred of respect for you or what you'd think about anything, and don't just think that you're a buffoon who is hopefully trolling rather than as stupid as you're pretending to be.

Fool, all molecules and atoms are made up of subatomic particles (btw I know you're not pretending to be stupid).

PhilX

Right, so you're not familiar with decoherence. You're really in a position to lecture about qm.

Again, this isn't even mentioning that you're not understanding what you're reading re "fixed positions" and the like. You don't at all understand HUP for example.

What has decoherence to do with subatomic positioning?
(now you're in my league rookie).

PhilX