9
   

there is a fundamental reality

Forums: Philosophy, Bad Writing
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2012 02:28 pm
@fresco,
Listen you dumb idiot, mind is an effect not the product of free will... own your own terms as much as conceptual as "matter" or even "God"...you are one stupid asshole indeed far from bright and incapable of noticing the contradictions you fall into even when someone like me is generous enough to give you in half an hour quick tour all the hints and clues that you in your entire life were incapable of reaching...your arguments if anything are fundamentalist as they came, circular and prone to infinite regressions...you as a philosopher sir are a complete disgrace !
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2012 02:40 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
...90% of the freaking dialogue options here are either to talk with demential barely able to speak folks or bureaucrats and mediocre alike s for an upgrade...hell patience is needed and I have don' t have none to spare this days...
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2012 03:42 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
On Dec 10th you wrote to Cyracuz
Quote:
...my seeking of attention it is so great that I am announcing my immediate retreat from this forum from this very moment on...
It is evident that you don´t deserve the pleasure of my presence around nor do I need the pathetic educated ignorance displayed by 90% of the posts I must endure...
for all that I care you can all enjoy your mediocrity together...thankfully I am sufficiently appreciated elsewhere...


Was elsewhere closed then ? What a shame ! Crying or Very sad

JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2012 04:28 pm
@fresco,
Yes, to understand life as an everyday, practical and concrete set of occurences we must acknowledge how the extra-contextual nature of theoretical frameworks and constructs operate in ways that seem irrelevant. This does not seem so egregious a problem for formal philosophy because it is, or has been, an intentionally abstract discipline* in pursuit of universal abstract truths, unlike the social sciences wherein we sometimes encounter theorists, like Talcott Parsons, whose expressions seem to more egregiously miss the point of the practices of everyday social life.
*I was going to exempt the existentialists before Heidegger came to mind.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2012 04:33 pm
@fresco,
Yes, what a shame.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2012 04:52 pm
@fresco,
...you are no short of pathetic...address the issue at hand idiot !
Prove any shadow of coherence in your claims and probably you will have more then JL to pad your back...you are a complete fool...your posts all around the forum are a complete bunch of bullshit and you know it...even with my poor English skills my thoughts are light years ahead of your nonsense...you are a cliché on legs, your friend is less !
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2012 04:59 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
..by the way elsewhere is fine thank you...I still come to this forum on account of following half a dozen intelligent and competent people around like Setanta Joe from Chicago Farmerman Frank and 2 or 3 more...certainly not to listen your nonsense...do you think for a moment you grab my attention other then for completely being irritating with your permanent display of stupidity ? You dream...
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2012 05:08 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
...you are no short of pathetic...address the issue at hand idiot !


This you said.
Then...
Quote:
Prove any shadow of coherence in your claims and probably you will have more then JL to pad your back...


Was their respective opinions of each other's thoughts the issue at hand?

Quote:
you are a complete fool...your posts all around the forum are a complete bunch of bullshit and you know it..


Was that the issue at hand?

Was...
Quote:
even with my poor English skills my thoughts are light years ahead of your nonsense...
.. the issue at hand?

Quote:
you are a cliché on legs, your friend is less !


More "issue at hand"?

By your own measure it would seem you are no short of pathetic yourself. The blindspot in your view of your world is astonishing. Very Happy
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2012 05:11 pm
@Cyracuz,
The King of fools has arrived the dumbest of them all ! Laughing
...you go ahead and debate North he is at your level...
(...I still remember how could I forget your answers on formal logic...your are that class of dumb who can´t even see it when someone is taking a piss upon you in a very polite manner...you have made history on this forum your intellectual credit is zero !)
north
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2012 07:47 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

The King of fools has arrived the dumbest of them all ! Laughing
...you go ahead and debate North he is at your level...
(...I still remember how could I forget your answers on formal logic...your are that class of dumb who can´t even see it when someone is taking a piss upon you in a very polite manner...you have made history on this forum your intellectual credit is zero !)


so Fil whats your problem with me
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2012 08:01 pm
Fil its time you and me hashed this out

I 'm ******* waiting
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2012 08:28 pm
@north,
I have no problem with you I just think you have a literal plain comprehension on some very very complex problems either due to your age if young, or to some lack of knowledge on a deeper sense, aside that you are mostly polite...my advise to you is to listen more before you "kick" in, otherwise you are just giving away ammunition to your opponents... Wink
north
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2012 08:38 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I have no problem with you I just think you have a literal plain comprehension on some very very complex problems


what is the problem with the fundamental elements ?

they have real properties and some have very real consequenes of our existence




Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2012 08:48 pm
@north,
The problem is not with the elements as "operators" indeed they function... the problem is with the "materialistic" meaning that people infer as a fundamental property on them...for instance in a three-dimensional simulation you can program a bunch of mathematical equations to behave like matter, fire, water, wind, etc etc and from the view point of someone internal to such virtual world there would be no difference whatsoever to distinguish such elements as not being truly "real" in the common sense usage as "material" or say "solid"...many scientists now are coming to this exact conclusion and taking a more abstract approach to the classical interpretation of what "reality" carry´s with it...functions are the result of property´s but it can be further argued that property´s are also the result of functions...there´s nothing that definitely establishes "material" as not being a property resulting from some more abstract functions at work...now mind my words in what follows, this is not an argument against substance or reality but only an argument against "matter" in the common sense usage...Substance only refers to that that which is the case of being true no matter if what is the case is of an abstract nature when it comes to its fundamental "existence"...
north
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2012 08:57 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
The problem is not with the elements as "operators" indeed they function... the problem is with the "materialistic" meaning that people infer as a fundamental property on them...for instance in a three-dimensional simulation you can program a bunch of mathematical equations to behave like matter, fire, water, wind, etc etc and from the view point of someone internal to such virtual world there would be no difference whatsoever to distinguish such elements as not being truly "real" in the common sense usage as material or say "solid"...many scientists now are coming to this exact conclusion and taking a more abstract approach to the classical interpretation of what "reality" carry´s with it...


except when they want to explore this virtual world in-depth

there is nothing to find

I've mentioned this before when you suggested the same thing
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2012 09:02 pm
@north,
...first it is not my suggestion in particular but the suggestion of very well known theoretical physicists who happen to coincide with my long term view, not a fashion spree from me here...There is nothing preventing what you call "real" world from being the result of abstract operators at work...no physicist made that claim yet, and if you think so, either you are poorly informed or you did n´t understood the issue...
north
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2012 09:16 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
...first it is not my suggestion in particular but the suggestion of very well known theoretical physicists who happen to coincide with my long term view, not a faction spree from me here...


then they are wrong

Quote:
There is nothing preventing what you call "real" world from being the result of abstract operators at work...


mathematicaly speaking , a mathematical function

the fundamental reality is not based on mathematics

Quote:
no physicist made that claim yet, and if you think so, either you are poorly informed or you did n´t understood the issue...


you confuse mathematics as being the ultimate understanding of reality with reality being physical

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2012 09:21 pm
@north,
well I am listening here, prove what is fundamental in matter (pay attention here) for its "materiality", if you please...give me your best shot !
Are you familiar with what a circular argument is and why is invalid, if not see to it !
north
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2012 09:26 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

well I am listening here, prove what is fundamental in matter if you please...give me your best shot !


protons and neutrons and electrons , electromagnetic fields , vibration and energy
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2012 09:32 pm
@north,
So ? What is fundamentally "material" on photons protons and electrons other then laws of nature say so ? What results in that which you call "materiality" is the the process of interaction between these particles on itself a "system" of functions, or in a loose sense a "program" (without a programmer) that establishes such and such possible "reactive" outcomes...
For instance if you imagine a two system reality in which reality 1 is transcendent to reality 2 and there is no interaction what would be of "materiality" between those 2 systems ?
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe - Discussion by Relinquish
can we reconcile darkness in man with madness(lunacy) ? - Question by studentnorway
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
In the GRAND scheme of things, what matters? - Question by komr98
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
How can something come from nothing? - Question by ripple
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » there is a fundamental reality
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 06:57:24
▲ ▼