"TomGee" wrote in message
ups.com...


AllYou! wrote:


What this all boils down to is pretty simple........

I claimed that time isn't physical, and you went on to misunderstand that to
mean that I was saying that time isn't real or that it doesn't exist. You've
never, ever been able to demonstrate that I ever said anything about it's
existence or reality, but nonetheless, you continue to assert that I raised the
whole issue of reality first. But that stems from your complete lack of
understanding of the words I used.

So now the debate took off into two tangents.........1) that of the validity of
the use of concepts such as reality in science, and; 2) that of the physicality
of time.

On the first, you claim that a debate of what is real and what is not is a
subject for philosophy, but yet you doggedly cling to the position that reality
is a valid subject for science. Don't you see it dimwit? The mere fact that
any discussion about what is real and what is not is a philosophical one
*proves* that the whole concept of reality is not a valid one in science. What
a moron.


On the second, you've made statements like time is a dimension AND a property,
and that time can affect the aging process (which you attempted to retract by
claiming that all you said was that the common idea is that time affects aging,
but yet you refuse to now weigh in on exactly what *you* believe) but yet you
can't give one straight answer as to how time is physical. What senses does it
stimulate, or alternatively, what instruments would we use to detect it?

You've made so many silly statements that it's tempting to repost them all here
just to box you in, but I'll give you a clean sheet. Please inform us as to
what you believe WRT time (physical or not) and reality (valid for science or
not). Go ahead, ****head, the floor is yours...........

In re AllYou: I called to AllYou's attention that he was embracing a
contradiction in his arguments. Specifically, it is inconsistent to
hold that reality has no place in science, but determining whether or
not something is physical, is a justifiable endeavor.

AllYou has a crude way to attempt to escape this obvious contradiction.
He announces that "reality is absolute"!? Huh???? Who told him this?
Where did he read this? What philosopher ever espoused such a
ridiculous opinion? What experiment did he ever perform that gave this
result?

Only in church does reality come in absolute form. In science nothing
comes in absolute form and that includes reality.
AllYou 'argues' that since reality is absolute, and since science does
not deal with absolutes, realty does not belong in science discourse.
His major premise in that deductive line of reasoning is totally false.

Philosophers who are Naturalists, (Materialists), hold that reality is
nature or is that which is physical. One of the ways to separate the
conceptual from physical reality is to ask, does it exist independent of
human perception? The earth exists independent of human perception and
was here before we evolved on it. This btw is an example of something
that is real and is part of reality, as AllYou keeps asking for examples
of. AllYou sounds very much like Patrick Reany, and he is often talking
the talk of solipsism.

With what degree of certitude do we know reality? Science does not
claim absolute knowledge about anything. The statement of AllYou that
"reality is absolute" is his own ill considered attempt to avoid the
contradiction I have found him in. Reality comes in different forms of
certitude depending upon the evidence. Hence a proposition may be
beyond a reasonable doubt, or clear and convincing, or supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, or may be supported by little evidence,
or may be purely speculative.

When AllYou is in the mood, he expounds all sort of philosophical goofy
stuff, but excoriates others for saying anything philosophical in a
scientific discussion. It is strange indeed that he can live with so
many contradictions.

Conclusion: AllYou announces ipsit dixit that "reality is absolute".
Where in the hell did he get that idea, Sunday School?
I hope nobody takes him seriously.

Daniel Weston wrote:
In re AllYou: I called to AllYou's attention that he was embracing a
contradiction in his arguments.


Yes, I read that, but he seems unwilling to reply to you. He must
think I'm easy pickins' and you're too hard to deal with!


Specifically, it is inconsistent to
hold that reality has no place in science, but determining whether or
not something is physical, is a justifiable endeavor.


Do you mean that as a scientist he should not determine whether
something is physical since he believes that there is no reality and so
it has not place in science? To me, his contradiction is that he
claims reality exists but has no place in science. Even after I posted
evidence where it is used and defined in physics, he argues it has no
place in science. The evidence shows, of course, that indeed it does
have a place in science, contrary to his unsupported opinion.

He has refused to state his definitions of absolute and of reality as
defined in physics because that would undermine his claims.


AllYou has a crude way to attempt to escape this obvious contradiction.
He announces that "reality is absolute"!? Huh???? Who told him this?
Where did he read this? What philosopher ever espoused such a
ridiculous opinion? What experiment did he ever perform that gave this
result?


Not only that, but he has not defined "absolute" the way physics
defines it and he has posted a ridiculous "definition" of reality which
defines nothing. He defines absolute as being unquestionable, i.e., a
principle held to be always true or valid. That is not the definition
of absolute but for the noun absolute, or, _an_ absolute. He actually
uses it as it is used in philosophy, that it is something that does not
depend on anything else.


Only in church does reality come in absolute form. In science nothing
comes in absolute form and that includes reality.
AllYou 'argues' that since reality is absolute, and since science does
not deal with absolutes, realty does not belong in science discourse.
His major premise in that deductive line of reasoning is totally false.

Philosophers who are Naturalists, (Materialists), hold that reality is
nature or is that which is physical. One of the ways to separate the
conceptual from physical reality is to ask, does it exist independent of
human perception? The earth exists independent of human perception and
was here before we evolved on it. This btw is an example of something
that is real and is part of reality, as AllYou keeps asking for examples
of. AllYou sounds very much like Patrick Reany, and he is often talking
the talk of solipsism.

With what degree of certitude do we know reality? Science does not
claim absolute knowledge about anything. The statement of AllYou that
"reality is absolute" is his own ill considered attempt to avoid the
contradiction I have found him in. Reality comes in different forms of
certitude depending upon the evidence. Hence a proposition may be
beyond a reasonable doubt, or clear and convincing, or supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, or may be supported by little evidence,
or may be purely speculative.

When AllYou is in the mood, he expounds all sort of philosophical goofy
stuff, but excoriates others for saying anything philosophical in a
scientific discussion. It is strange indeed that he can live with so
many contradictions.

Conclusion: AllYou announces ipsit dixit that "reality is absolute".
Where in the hell did he get that idea, Sunday School?
I hope nobody takes him seriously.


He got that from his teachers who believed that way because it was
trendy physics and because they imposed on those trusting them to teach
them well. So much for trusting teachers. However, most Lemmings who
post here no longer publicize that belief because it has fallen from
grace.

AllYou did not get the word, however, so he's still out there all alone
on that proverbial limb, while his fellow Lemmings remain silent as
they watch him swinging in the wind. Otherwise, we would have long ago
heard from the likes of UA, Hobbit, Wormy, Bilgy, et al, in support of
AllYou's philosophic crapola.

"TomGee" wrote in message
ups.com...

Daniel Weston wrote:
In re AllYou: I called to AllYou's attention that he was embracing a
contradiction in his arguments.


Yes, I read that, but he seems unwilling to reply to you. He must
think I'm easy pickins' and you're too hard to deal with!

I did reply. Here it is again:
No, but I'm sure your limited intellect can't make understand the difference
between the two concepts. Here, let me explain it to the lurkers.

The whole notion of reality is one of absoluteness. Reality implies that
without any doubt, or any question, there are phenomena which exists and which
can be quantified without any doubt whatsoever. However, there is no way to
remove any doubt about what we might perceive to be real. Our minds, our
senses, our intellects may all conspire to mislead us as to what we
conceptualize as *real*.

Therefore, all that we can do is to build models of what might fit our concept
of reality using observations as best we can. Our senses are stimulated, and
that which we believe to have caused that stimulation is what we call physical,
and through constant testing (i.e., comparison of our predictions with
stimulation of our senses), we develop various confidences in our model based
upon the extent to which our predictions were accurate.

That's the difference between physical and real, dip****.



Specifically, it is inconsistent to
hold that reality has no place in science, but determining whether or
not something is physical, is a justifiable endeavor.

If you knew what *to be physical* meant, you'd know what you just said is
stupid.



Do you mean that as a scientist he should not determine whether
something is physical since he believes that there is no reality and so
it has not place in science? To me, his contradiction is that he
claims reality exists but has no place in science. Even after I posted
evidence where it is used and defined in physics, he argues it has no
place in science. The evidence shows, of course, that indeed it does
have a place in science, contrary to his unsupported opinion.

He has refused to state his definitions of absolute and of reality as
defined in physics because that would undermine his claims.

That's a flat out lie. first of all, I've stated the definition of absolute
here twice now in response to you, and as to reality, you raised the issue, you
define it.



AllYou has a crude way to attempt to escape this obvious contradiction.
He announces that "reality is absolute"!? Huh???? Who told him this?
Where did he read this? What philosopher ever espoused such a
ridiculous opinion? What experiment did he ever perform that gave this
result?


Not only that, but he has not defined "absolute" the way physics
defines it and he has posted a ridiculous "definition" of reality which
defines nothing. He defines absolute as being unquestionable, i.e., a
principle held to be always true or valid. That is not the definition
of absolute but for the noun absolute, or, _an_ absolute. He actually
uses it as it is used in philosophy, that it is something that does not
depend on anything else.

More lies.

"TomGee" wrote in message
ups.com...


AllYou! wrote:


What this all boils down to is pretty simple........

I claimed that time isn't physical, and you went on to misunderstand that to
mean that I was saying that time isn't real or that it doesn't exist. You've
never, ever been able to demonstrate that I ever said anything about it's
existence or reality, but nonetheless, you continue to assert that I raised the
whole issue of reality first. But that stems from your complete lack of
understanding of the words I used.

So now the debate took off into two tangents.........1) that of the validity of
the use of concepts such as reality in science, and; 2) that of the physicality
of time.

On the first, you claim that a debate of what is real and what is not is a
subject for philosophy, but yet you doggedly cling to the position that reality
is a valid subject for science. Don't you see it dimwit? The mere fact that
any discussion about what is real and what is not is a philosophical one
*proves* that the whole concept of reality is not a valid one in science. What
a moron.


On the second, you've made statements like time is a dimension AND a property,
and that time can affect the aging process (which you attempted to retract by
claiming that all you said was that the common idea is that time affects aging,
but yet you refuse to now weigh in on exactly what *you* believe) but yet you
can't give one straight answer as to how time is physical. What senses does it
stimulate, or alternatively, what instruments would we use to detect it?

You've made so many silly statements that it's tempting to repost them all here
just to box you in, but I'll give you a clean sheet. Please inform us as to
what you believe WRT time (physical or not) and reality (valid for science or
not). Go ahead, ****head, the floor is yours...........

AllYou continues with his old saw that "the whole notion of reality is
one of absoluteness". This notion of his is philosophically grotesque
and scientifically vacuous. AllYou has now made himself irrelevant.

And invisible too. No one can read his posts here anymore except him
and other philosophers of high intellect.

Daniel Weston wrote:
AllYou continues with his old saw that "the whole notion of reality is
one of absoluteness". This notion of his is philosophically grotesque
and scientifically vacuous. AllYou has now made himself irrelevant.

Just ask Allyou what a drag racer has to do to make
the official clock run slower and he will go away.


Sue...

"Daniel Weston" wrote in message
...
AllYou continues with his old saw that "the whole notion of reality is
one of absoluteness". This notion of his is philosophically grotesque
and scientifically vacuous. AllYou has now made himself irrelevant.

Then there should be no reason for you to ever post to me, or about me ever
again, correct? Good riddance.

Why have you never responded?

"TomGee" wrote in message
ups.com...
And invisible too. No one can read his posts here anymore except him
and other philosophers of high intellect.


AllYou! wrote:


What this all boils down to is pretty simple........

I claimed that time isn't physical, and you went on to misunderstand that to
mean that I was saying that time isn't real or that it doesn't exist. You've
never, ever been able to demonstrate that I ever said anything about it's
existence or reality, but nonetheless, you continue to assert that I raised the
whole issue of reality first. But that stems from your complete lack of
understanding of the words I used.

So now the debate took off into two tangents.........1) that of the validity of
the use of concepts such as reality in science, and; 2) that of the physicality
of time.

On the first, you claim that a debate of what is real and what is not is a
subject for philosophy, but yet you doggedly cling to the position that reality
is a valid subject for science. Don't you see it dimwit? The mere fact that
any discussion about what is real and what is not is a philosophical one
*proves* that the whole concept of reality is not a valid one in science. What
a moron.


On the second, you've made statements like time is a dimension AND a property,
and that time can affect the aging process (which you attempted to retract by
claiming that all you said was that the common idea is that time affects aging,
but yet you refuse to now weigh in on exactly what *you* believe) but yet you
can't give one straight answer as to how time is physical. What senses does it
stimulate, or alternatively, what instruments would we use to detect it?

You've made so many silly statements that it's tempting to repost them all here
just to box you in, but I'll give you a clean sheet. Please inform us as to
what you believe WRT time (physical or not) and reality (valid for science or
not). Go ahead, ****head, the floor is yours...........