"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...

AllYou! wrote:

"TomGee" wrote in message

oups.com...



AllYou! wrote:



Here's my comment....



"No, TomGee, all we have in science is evidence, not proof, and not
reality.

Reality is absolute, so give me one example of something you know to be
real."



In that context, I'm claiming that the notion of reality is absolute
(i.e.,

unquestionable, with any doubt whatever),





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You're not making sense above. A notion is an idea, and you're arguing

that the idea of reality is absolute. Yes, it is absolutely an idea,

without a doubt, but it is not otherwise reality, it is only one idea

of reality. There are many, as I showed you previously. But we are

talking physics here, and your definition above does not match the

physics definitions I showed you previously. Aren't you making up your

own definitions, then?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



This is obviously going over your head. Frankly, I don't see how it's
possible

to ever get through your limited intellect, but I'll try. I'm not claiming
that

reality *is* a notion,





Yes, you a "The notion of reality" means simply the idea of

reality.... Your high intellect prevents you from see the simple

things in life, like what "notion" means, etc.





That's like saying *the subject of reality*. It doesn't mean that reality is
just a subject, nimrod, it means that there is a subject being discussed and
it's that of reality. Well the same is true of *the notion of reality*. Not
any different.








but I'm claiming that we each have an idea of what the

definition of reality is, and it's that definition, that description of
reality

which is the notion of reality. The key word here is *of*. Let me try it a

different way.....





Yes, do, because you're still not making any sense.



Not to a moron like you.









Do you have any idea what reality is? Do you have a clue as to what it is?





I might ask you the same thing. You don't seem to have a clue as to

the difference between notions, ideas, reality, and "absolute", even

after I gave you several definitions for it.



So answer the question. If you think that *reality* has some valid place in
science, then define it, and give me an example of something to which it
applies.









Then that idea is the notion to which I refer.





So you want to discuss ideas about reality? That's what I said at

first, you want to turn a physics discussion about time into a

philosophical discussion about reality, even though you say reality

exists.



I said exactly the opposite. I said there's no way to know what is real and
what is not, and therefore, reality has no place in science.









~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is no way to tell what you mean when you say "unquestionable"

above, so you may mean that reality exists, unquestionably, as defined

this way: "Reality real existence: actual being or existence, as

opposed to an imaginary, idealized, or false nature" Microsoft®

Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation.

All rights reserved.



If so, that contradicts your philosophic belief that nothing is real,

or that there is no reality, whichever comes first.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



This is where your limited intellect let's you down. I never claimed that

relaity doesn't exist. That's a topic for philosophy. I'm simply claiming
that

the whole topic (i.e., notion) of reality, the whole subject *of* relaity
(I'm

not saying that reality is juat a subject) is not one for science because

science has no way of knowing what is real and what is not.





Well, you're certainly entitled to your own opinions, as I've said

before, but if you believe that reality is absolute, meaning that it

exists as "opposed to an imaginary...or false nature", why do you want

me to give you one example known to be real? You already believe

reality exists, why should I have to prove it to you? Are you so

unsure of what you believe that you need me to prove that what you

believe is correct?





This is actually quite simple, although it may be too complex for you. My
position is that because there's no way to scientifically know what is real and
what is not, and there's actually no way to even know if there is a reality,
that any discussion of reality in science is invalid. Now, you're the one who
raised the subject, so please define it, and please give me an example of
something to which it applies.







~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's no wonder you're so confused, since you don't even know which side

of this debate you're on.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



and that science is incapable of such

precision. All there is in science is observable evidence within the
combined

constraints and combined limitations of our senses, our perceptions, and
our

instruments.

Now, your turn (and this time, no snipping of the evidence that I've got
you

boxed in):





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not so fast, speedy. You have not defined reality yet. You have

defined your idea of reality, but that does not conform to a physics

definition of reality.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





Look dimwit, I never said that time wasn't real, or that it didn't exist. I

said it wasn't physical. You're the one who misunderstood that statement.
So

you're the one that raised the subject of reality, and so it's for you to
define

it.





I did.



You didn't.



You: "If you truly believe that time is not part of our reality, but only
"a

blind assertion", you are mistaken in your belief, and just saying it is not
so

is only an unsupported assertion which contradicts uncontested reality."



See? You were the first one ever to raise the subject.





Your high intellect has let you down once again, as you completely

missed the point, which was not about reality but about your claim that

time is only a "blind assertion" without making any claims as to why

you think it is a blind assertion. You wanted so badly to talk about

reality that you fixed on my use of the term and did not understand the

point of the statement.





My posts here over the last few years are replete with my justifications of my
positions. I belive that the physicallity of time is a blind assertion because
no one has ever demonsrtated it to be otherwise. Can you?







So tell me, in that

sentence, what did *you* mean by reality, and what did you mean by exist?
And

make sure you can give that answer in a context fit for science. Whereas
it's

my claim that the subject (i.e., notion) of reality is a philosophical one,
not

only isn't it my job to define it, it's my position that it's not good
science

to even discuss it in a science context.





Well, why don't you want to define it the way it is defined in physics?



It isn't.



If I go to your philosophy ng and talk about it using the definition

of physics, I am sure you would object the same as me.





Meanwhile, you still haven't answer *my*question.



Since you raised the subject (i.e., notion) of reality, then not only must
you

define it, but certainly you can give me one example of what's real. Can't
you?

Then, don't forget about the following:



No, I said that the _notion_ of time affects the aging process.





A notion can affect that aging process? A simple concept, born of thought, can
affect the aging process? This is gonna be rich!



The

idea of time is that it causes aging, but as I've said before, time has

no power to do anything.



What? Time has no power to do anything, but the notion of it does?





No. The idea of time is that it causes aging, in every instance of

which I am aware. My idea proposes that time has no power to do

anything.



So now you're claiming that you didn't say "I said that the _notion_ of time
affects the aging process", but that you really meant that the current notion is
that time affects the aginf process. But then again, that's not what you said.
You said



Me: "What is it that can be affected by the notion of time?"

You: "Right off the bat, I'd say the fact we all grow old and die"



So there it is, right there. Are you now claiming that despite the fact that I
never asked you what you thought the current ideas of science were, that your
response was only that? That's a lie, but I'll give you another
chance.....here's the question again, and I want you to tell me *your* position



"What is it that can be affected by the notion of time?"







Me: "What is it that can be affected by the notion of time?"

You: "Right off the bat, I'd say the fact we all grow old and die"



Right there, you said that the notion can affect the aging process.





Yes. The idea of time is that it causes aging, in every instance of

which I am aware. My idea proposes that time has no power to do

anything.



So now you don't believe that time causes aging, or you do? Which is it?







Not only

that, but you said that time was a property of the universe. What do you
mean

by that? Are you claiming that it's a none physical property? How can a

property of something physical, not be physical?





In saying time is a property of the universe, I mean that it accrues to

every visible object in the universe just like gravitation is a

property of all massive objects but varies in its strength dependent

upon mass size and structure.



In saying that time is a property of matter, I mean that time passes at

rates for discrete objects dependent upon their states of motion. For

that to be true, time must apply universe-wide to all objects. That

is to say, bodies similar in structure and in their states of motion

will age at about the same rate no matter how far apart they may be.



So time is a non-physical property? What the hell is a non-physical property?
Can you give me another example of one?







It is a dimension in which we exist where its

speed depends on our states of motion within the universe. Now define

the way you're using "absolute".





Wait. So time is a dimension AND a property? So time has speed, but it's
not

physical? How can something which is not physical have speed?





A dimension is a property (a characteristic quality) which defines a

physical quantity. Did your high intellect forget to tell you that?



You just proved you know nothing of science. A dimension is not a property. No
way, no how.

AllYou! wrote:
"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...

AllYou! wrote:
"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...

AllYou! wrote:
Here's my comment....

"No, TomGee, all we have in science is evidence, not proof, and not
reality.
Reality is absolute, so give me one example of something you know to be
real."

In that context, I'm claiming that the notion of reality is absolute
(i.e.,
unquestionable, with any doubt whatever),

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You're not making sense above. A notion is an idea, and you're arguing
that the idea of reality is absolute. Yes, it is absolutely an idea,
without a doubt, but it is not otherwise reality, it is only one idea
of reality. There are many, as I showed you previously. But we are
talking physics here, and your definition above does not match the
physics definitions I showed you previously. Aren't you making up your
own definitions, then?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is obviously going over your head. Frankly, I don't see how it's
possible
to ever get through your limited intellect, but I'll try. I'm not claiming
that
reality *is* a notion,


Yes, you a "The notion of reality" means simply the idea of
reality.... Your high intellect prevents you from see the simple
things in life, like what "notion" means, etc.


That's like saying *the subject of reality*. It doesn't mean that reality is
just a subject, nimrod, it means that there is a subject being discussed and
it's that of reality. Well the same is true of *the notion of reality*. Not
any different.


Of course it's different, idjit, in plain English, which is too plain
for your high intellect. You don't know English well enough to know
precisely what you mean so you are trying to make up your own English
rules regarding what words mean.


but I'm claiming that we each have an idea of what the
definition of reality is, and it's that definition, that description of
reality
which is the notion of reality. The key word here is *of*. Let me try it a
different way.....


Yes, do, because you're still not making any sense.


Not to a moron like you.


Do you have any idea what reality is? Do you have a clue as to what it is?


I might ask you the same thing. You don't seem to have a clue as to
the difference between notions, ideas, reality, and "absolute", even
after I gave you several definitions for it.


So answer the question. If you think that *reality* has some valid place in
science, then define it, and give me an example of something to which it
applies.


Why should I when you won't answer my question about your "absolute
reality"? My examples would be all that you call "evidence", anyway.


Then that idea is the notion to which I refer.


So you want to discuss ideas about reality? That's what I said at
first, you want to turn a physics discussion about time into a
philosophical discussion about reality, even though you say reality
exists.


I said exactly the opposite. I said there's no way to know what is real and
what is not, and therefore, reality has no place in science.


See, idjit, that's an unsupported philosophical opinion which shows
that you continue to want to turn this into a philosophical
discussion....


There is no way to tell what you mean when you say "unquestionable"
above, so you may mean that reality exists, unquestionably, as defined
this way: "Reality real existence: actual being or existence, as
opposed to an imaginary, idealized, or false nature" Microsoft®
Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.


If so, that contradicts your philosophic belief that nothing is real,
or that there is no reality, whichever comes first.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is where your limited intellect let's you down. I never claimed that
relaity doesn't exist. That's a topic for philosophy. I'm simply claiming
that
the whole topic (i.e., notion) of reality, the whole subject *of* relaity
(I'm
not saying that reality is juat a subject) is not one for science because
science has no way of knowing what is real and what is not.


Well, you're certainly entitled to your own opinions, as I've said
before, but if you believe that reality is absolute, meaning that it
exists as "opposed to an imaginary...or false nature", why do you want
me to give you one example known to be real? You already believe
reality exists, why should I have to prove it to you? Are you so
unsure of what you believe that you need me to prove that what you
believe is correct?


This is actually quite simple, although it may be too complex for you. My
position is that because there's no way to scientifically know what is real and
what is not, and there's actually no way to even know if there is a reality,
that any discussion of reality in science is invalid. Now, you're the one who
raised the subject, so please define it, and please give me an example of
something to which it applies.


NO, you raised the subject; I am the one who told you to go to another
ng more apropos. You keep repeating your position as if you are trying
to convince yourself of it. In plain English, I _disagree_ with your
position!!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's no wonder you're so confused, since you don't even know which side
of this debate you're on.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

and that science is incapable of such
precision. All there is in science is observable evidence within the
combined
constraints and combined limitations of our senses, our perceptions, and
our
instruments.


High school physics - everyone knows that, fool. So what? As far as
physics is concerned, the observable evidence which you disdain so
philosophically is good enough to work with, while your philosophy is
to present obstacles to progress both social and scientific. As I said
previously, you're a shaman from the caves.


Now, your turn (and this time, no snipping of the evidence that I've got
you
boxed in):


But you claim that evidence is not reality, just a figment of our
senses, so how can you claim to use it as support for your strawman
philosophical arguments?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not so fast, speedy. You have not defined reality yet. You have
defined your idea of reality, but that does not conform to a physics
definition of reality.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Look dimwit, I never said that time wasn't real, or that it didn't exist. I
said it wasn't physical. You're the one who misunderstood that statement.
So
you're the one that raised the subject of reality, and so it's for you to
define
it.


I too said it wasn't physical. Why keeping beating a dead horse?


I did.


You didn't.


Did.


You: "If you truly believe that time is not part of our reality, but only
"a
blind assertion", you are mistaken in your belief, and just saying it is not
so
is only an unsupported assertion which contradicts uncontested reality."

See? You were the first one ever to raise the subject.


Your high intellect has let you down once again, as you completely
missed the point, which was not about reality but about your claim that
time is only a "blind assertion" without making any claims as to why
you think it is a blind assertion. You wanted so badly to talk about
reality that you fixed on my use of the term and did not understand the
point of the statement.


My posts here over the last few years are replete with my justifications of my
positions. I belive that the physicallity of time is a blind assertion because
no one has ever demonsrtated it to be otherwise. Can you?


I just did, in this thread. Your posts all these years are replete
with unsupported opinions more related to and based on philosophic and
metaphysical conjecture than scientific theory or research.


So tell me, in that
sentence, what did *you* mean by reality, and what did you mean by exist?
And
make sure you can give that answer in a context fit for science. Whereas
it's
my claim that the subject (i.e., notion) of reality is a philosophical one,
not
only isn't it my job to define it, it's my position that it's not good
science
to even discuss it in a science context.


Well, why don't you want to define it the way it is defined in physics?


It isn't.


It is. Nyah nyah nyah nyah nana!


If I go to your philosophy ng and talk about it using the definition
of physics, I am sure you would object the same as me.


Meanwhile, you still haven't answer *my*question.

Since you raised the subject (i.e., notion) of reality, then not only must
you
define it, but certainly you can give me one example of what's real. Can't
you?
Then, don't forget about the following:

No, I said that the _notion_ of time affects the aging process.


A notion can affect that aging process? A simple concept, born of thought, can
affect the aging process? This is gonna be rich!

The
idea of time is that it causes aging, but as I've said before, time has
no power to do anything.

What? Time has no power to do anything, but the notion of it does?


No. The idea of time is that it causes aging, in every instance of
which I am aware. My idea proposes that time has no power to do
anything.


So now you're claiming that you didn't say "I said that the _notion_ of time
affects the aging process", but that you really meant that the current notion is
that time affects the aginf process. But then again, that's not what you said.
You said

Me: "What is it that can be affected by the notion of time?"

You: "Right off the bat, I'd say the fact we all grow old and die"

So there it is, right there. Are you now claiming that despite the fact that I
never asked you what you thought the current ideas of science were, that your
response was only that? That's a lie, but I'll give you another
chance.....here's the question again, and I want you to tell me *your* position

"What is it that can be affected by the notion of time?"


Yeah right. Don't hold your breath....


Me: "What is it that can be affected by the notion of time?"

You: "Right off the bat, I'd say the fact we all grow old and die"

Right there, you said that the notion can affect the aging process.


Yes. The idea of time is that it causes aging, in every instance of
which I am aware. My idea proposes that time has no power to do
anything.


So now you don't believe that time causes aging, or you do? Which is it?


Now you are so confused you're ready for the loony bin. That's what
unshakeable faith in philosophy does to you!


Not only
that, but you said that time was a property of the universe. What do you
mean
by that? Are you claiming that it's a none physical property? How can a
property of something physical, not be physical?


In saying time is a property of the universe, I mean that it accrues to
every visible object in the universe just like gravitation is a
property of all massive objects but varies in its strength dependent
upon mass size and structure.

In saying that time is a property of matter, I mean that time passes at
rates for discrete objects dependent upon their states of motion. For
that to be true, time must apply universe-wide to all objects. That
is to say, bodies similar in structure and in their states of motion
will age at about the same rate no matter how far apart they may be.


So time is a non-physical property? What the hell is a non-physical property?
Can you give me another example of one?


Better yet, you give us an example of a "physical" property.


It is a dimension in which we exist where its
speed depends on our states of motion within the universe. Now define
the way you're using "absolute".


Wait. So time is a dimension AND a property? So time has speed, but it's
not
physical? How can something which is not physical have speed?


A dimension is a property (a characteristic quality) which defines a
physical quantity. Did your high intellect forget to tell you that?


You just proved you know nothing of science. A dimension is not a property. No
way, no how.


One more of your famous unsupported opinions!

"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...


AllYou! wrote:
"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...

AllYou! wrote:
"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...

AllYou! wrote:
Here's my comment....

"No, TomGee, all we have in science is evidence, not proof, and not
reality.
Reality is absolute, so give me one example of something you know to
be
real."

In that context, I'm claiming that the notion of reality is absolute
(i.e.,
unquestionable, with any doubt whatever),

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You're not making sense above. A notion is an idea, and you're arguing
that the idea of reality is absolute. Yes, it is absolutely an idea,
without a doubt, but it is not otherwise reality, it is only one idea
of reality. There are many, as I showed you previously. But we are
talking physics here, and your definition above does not match the
physics definitions I showed you previously. Aren't you making up your
own definitions, then?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is obviously going over your head. Frankly, I don't see how it's
possible
to ever get through your limited intellect, but I'll try. I'm not
claiming
that
reality *is* a notion,


Yes, you a "The notion of reality" means simply the idea of
reality.... Your high intellect prevents you from see the simple
things in life, like what "notion" means, etc.


That's like saying *the subject of reality*. It doesn't mean that reality
is
just a subject, nimrod, it means that there is a subject being discussed and
it's that of reality. Well the same is true of *the notion of reality*.
Not
any different.


Of course it's different, idjit, in plain English, which is too plain
for your high intellect. You don't know English well enough to know
precisely what you mean so you are trying to make up your own English
rules regarding what words mean.



LOL! you really are desperate, aren't you. But that's not gonna get you out of
this one.






but I'm claiming that we each have an idea of what the
definition of reality is, and it's that definition, that description of
reality
which is the notion of reality. The key word here is *of*. Let me try
it a
different way.....


Yes, do, because you're still not making any sense.


Not to a moron like you.


Do you have any idea what reality is? Do you have a clue as to what it
is?


I might ask you the same thing. You don't seem to have a clue as to
the difference between notions, ideas, reality, and "absolute", even
after I gave you several definitions for it.


So answer the question. If you think that *reality* has some valid place in
science, then define it, and give me an example of something to which it
applies.


Why should I when you won't answer my question about your "absolute
reality"?



But I did answer your question. you asked me to define absoulte, and I did.
Now you want me to define reality, but I'm not the one who brought up the
subject. You're the one who first used the term, so you define it. Your
continued refusla to do shows that you can't.



My examples would be all that you call "evidence", anyway.



But I'll do more than just call it evidence. I'll also show how science is
simply incapable of determining anything with *absolute* certainty.






Then that idea is the notion to which I refer.


So you want to discuss ideas about reality? That's what I said at
first, you want to turn a physics discussion about time into a
philosophical discussion about reality, even though you say reality
exists.


I said exactly the opposite. I said there's no way to know what is real and
what is not, and therefore, reality has no place in science.


See, idjit, that's an unsupported philosophical opinion which shows
that you continue to want to turn this into a philosophical
discussion....



It's not philosophical to say which concepts have no place in science. Science
is a default situation wherein only that which is observable is included.
Nothing else can be included without a logical argument to support it, and
there's no logical argument to support the idea that reality has any place in
science. Now, if you think there is, then make it. But first, define it.






There is no way to tell what you mean when you say "unquestionable"
above, so you may mean that reality exists, unquestionably, as defined
this way: "Reality real existence: actual being or existence, as
opposed to an imaginary, idealized, or false nature" Microsoft®
Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.


If so, that contradicts your philosophic belief that nothing is real,
or that there is no reality, whichever comes first.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is where your limited intellect let's you down. I never claimed
that
relaity doesn't exist. That's a topic for philosophy. I'm simply
claiming
that
the whole topic (i.e., notion) of reality, the whole subject *of*
relaity
(I'm
not saying that reality is juat a subject) is not one for science
because
science has no way of knowing what is real and what is not.


Well, you're certainly entitled to your own opinions, as I've said
before, but if you believe that reality is absolute, meaning that it
exists as "opposed to an imaginary...or false nature", why do you want
me to give you one example known to be real? You already believe
reality exists, why should I have to prove it to you? Are you so
unsure of what you believe that you need me to prove that what you
believe is correct?


This is actually quite simple, although it may be too complex for you. My
position is that because there's no way to scientifically know what is real
and
what is not, and there's actually no way to even know if there is a reality,
that any discussion of reality in science is invalid. Now, you're the one
who
raised the subject, so please define it, and please give me an example of
something to which it applies.


NO, you raised the subject;



No, you were the first one to raise it in message
oups.com...



I never claimed that there was a reality, and I never claimed that time or
anything else either existed or not. All I said was that *time* wasn't
observable, and as such, is just a concept.



OTOH, you've kept insisting that concepts such as *existance* and *reality* have
a valid place in a discussion of science. So support that position and define
those terms, and give examples. It's really that simple. Either you agree with
me that those concepts have no place in science, or you do. Which is it?



I am the one who told you to go to another
ng more apropos. You keep repeating your position as if you are trying
to convince yourself of it. In plain English, I _disagree_ with your
position!!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's no wonder you're so confused, since you don't even know which side
of this debate you're on.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

and that science is incapable of such
precision. All there is in science is observable evidence within the
combined
constraints and combined limitations of our senses, our perceptions,
and
our
instruments.


High school physics - everyone knows that, fool. So what? As far as
physics is concerned, the observable evidence which you disdain so
philosophically is good enough to work with, while your philosophy is
to present obstacles to progress both social and scientific. As I said
previously, you're a shaman from the caves.



You are one sick puppy. I don't disdain observable evidence, I claim that it's
all that science has to work with. You're the one who' arguing that scince can
also determine what is real and what exists, and so I'm asking you to show me
how that's true.




Now, your turn (and this time, no snipping of the evidence that I've
got
you
boxed in):


But you claim that evidence is not reality, just a figment of our
senses, so how can you claim to use it as support for your strawman
philosophical arguments?



It's only philosophical to raise the prospect that reality and existence has any
place in science. In science, we have our senses, and we have instruments. We
use both to observe. That's just the way it is. To extend this process to
assert that anything *really exists* is the philosophical leap of faith, and
that has no place in science. Observations are we all have, and we build models
using the data thus obtained. That's it.





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not so fast, speedy. You have not defined reality yet. You have
defined your idea of reality, but that does not conform to a physics
definition of reality.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Look dimwit, I never said that time wasn't real, or that it didn't
exist. I
said it wasn't physical. You're the one who misunderstood that
statement.
So
you're the one that raised the subject of reality, and so it's for you
to
define
it.


I too said it wasn't physical. Why keeping beating a dead horse?



You say it's a property, and you've yet to show how a property of something
physical can be non-physical.




I did.


You didn't.


Did.


You: "If you truly believe that time is not part of our reality, but
only
"a
blind assertion", you are mistaken in your belief, and just saying it is
not
so
is only an unsupported assertion which contradicts uncontested reality."

See? You were the first one ever to raise the subject.


Your high intellect has let you down once again, as you completely
missed the point, which was not about reality but about your claim that
time is only a "blind assertion" without making any claims as to why
you think it is a blind assertion. You wanted so badly to talk about
reality that you fixed on my use of the term and did not understand the
point of the statement.


My posts here over the last few years are replete with my justifications of
my
positions. I belive that the physicallity of time is a blind assertion
because
no one has ever demonsrtated it to be otherwise. Can you?


I just did, in this thread.



So you agree that time isn't physical, but now you say that you've demonstrated
that it is. Hmmmmmm. Care to explain?





Your posts all these years are replete
with unsupported opinions more related to and based on philosophic and
metaphysical conjecture than scientific theory or research.


So tell me, in that
sentence, what did *you* mean by reality, and what did you mean by
exist?
And
make sure you can give that answer in a context fit for science.
Whereas
it's
my claim that the subject (i.e., notion) of reality is a philosophical
one,
not
only isn't it my job to define it, it's my position that it's not good
science
to even discuss it in a science context.


Well, why don't you want to define it the way it is defined in physics?


It isn't.


It is. Nyah nyah nyah nyah nana!


If I go to your philosophy ng and talk about it using the definition
of physics, I am sure you would object the same as me.


Meanwhile, you still haven't answer *my*question.

Since you raised the subject (i.e., notion) of reality, then not only
must
you
define it, but certainly you can give me one example of what's real.
Can't
you?
Then, don't forget about the following:

No, I said that the _notion_ of time affects the aging process.


A notion can affect that aging process? A simple concept, born of thought,
can
affect the aging process? This is gonna be rich!

The
idea of time is that it causes aging, but as I've said before, time
has
no power to do anything.

What? Time has no power to do anything, but the notion of it does?


No. The idea of time is that it causes aging, in every instance of
which I am aware. My idea proposes that time has no power to do
anything.


So now you're claiming that you didn't say "I said that the _notion_ of time
affects the aging process", but that you really meant that the current
notion is
that time affects the aginf process. But then again, that's not what you
said.
You said

Me: "What is it that can be affected by the notion of time?"

You: "Right off the bat, I'd say the fact we all grow old and die"

So there it is, right there. Are you now claiming that despite the fact
that I
never asked you what you thought the current ideas of science were, that
your
response was only that? That's a lie, but I'll give you another
chance.....here's the question again, and I want you to tell me *your*
position

"What is it that can be affected by the notion of time?"


Yeah right. Don't hold your breath....


LOL! See what I mean? You answered the question before by saying that aging is
thus affected, but then after backing off that statement, you can't answer it at
all. Therefore, what I first asserted is correct, and that your definition of
time is meaningless.






Me: "What is it that can be affected by the notion of time?"

You: "Right off the bat, I'd say the fact we all grow old and die"

Right there, you said that the notion can affect the aging process.


Yes. The idea of time is that it causes aging, in every instance of
which I am aware. My idea proposes that time has no power to do
anything.


So now you don't believe that time causes aging, or you do? Which is it?


Now you are so confused you're ready for the loony bin. That's what
unshakeable faith in philosophy does to you!



Do you belive that time affects the aging process, or don't you? It's really
not that complicated.



Not only
that, but you said that time was a property of the universe. What do
you
mean
by that? Are you claiming that it's a none physical property? How can
a
property of something physical, not be physical?


In saying time is a property of the universe, I mean that it accrues to
every visible object in the universe just like gravitation is a
property of all massive objects but varies in its strength dependent
upon mass size and structure.

In saying that time is a property of matter, I mean that time passes at
rates for discrete objects dependent upon their states of motion. For
that to be true, time must apply universe-wide to all objects. That
is to say, bodies similar in structure and in their states of motion
will age at about the same rate no matter how far apart they may be.


So time is a non-physical property? What the hell is a non-physical
property?
Can you give me another example of one?


Better yet, you give us an example of a "physical" property.



LOL! you just can't answer a simple question, can you. OK, Mass. Now you give
me a non-physical one.




It is a dimension in which we exist where its
speed depends on our states of motion within the universe. Now define
the way you're using "absolute".


Wait. So time is a dimension AND a property? So time has speed, but
it's
not
physical? How can something which is not physical have speed?


A dimension is a property (a characteristic quality) which defines a
physical quantity. Did your high intellect forget to tell you that?


You just proved you know nothing of science. A dimension is not a property.
No
way, no how.


One more of your famous unsupported opinions!



LOL!

AllYou! wrote:
"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...


AllYou! wrote:
"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...

AllYou! wrote:
"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...

AllYou! wrote:
Here's my comment....

"No, TomGee, all we have in science is evidence, not proof, and not
reality.
Reality is absolute, so give me one example of something you know to
be
real."

In that context, I'm claiming that the notion of reality is absolute
(i.e.,
unquestionable, with any doubt whatever),

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You're not making sense above. A notion is an idea, and you're arguing
that the idea of reality is absolute. Yes, it is absolutely an idea,
without a doubt, but it is not otherwise reality, it is only one idea
of reality. There are many, as I showed you previously. But we are
talking physics here, and your definition above does not match the
physics definitions I showed you previously. Aren't you making up your
own definitions, then?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is obviously going over your head. Frankly, I don't see how it's
possible
to ever get through your limited intellect, but I'll try. I'm not
claiming
that
reality *is* a notion,


Yes, you a "The notion of reality" means simply the idea of
reality.... Your high intellect prevents you from see the simple
things in life, like what "notion" means, etc.


That's like saying *the subject of reality*. It doesn't mean that reality
is
just a subject, nimrod, it means that there is a subject being discussed and
it's that of reality. Well the same is true of *the notion of reality*.
Not
any different.


Of course it's different, idjit, in plain English, which is too plain
for your high intellect. You don't know English well enough to know
precisely what you mean so you are trying to make up your own English
rules regarding what words mean.



LOL! you really are desperate, aren't you.


Desperate? I'm not the one down the deep hole, dumbell, nor the one
who cannot understand plain English while claiming the highest of
intellects, nor the one making up his own definitions, nor arguing
irrelevant issues. In fact, I'm the one who's bored out of his skin
trying to hold up this conversation, what with your evasiveness and
stupidity.

SNIP comic book prose....


but I'm claiming that we each have an idea of what the
definition of reality is, and it's that definition, that description of
reality
which is the notion of reality. The key word here is *of*. Let me try
it a
different way.....


Yes, do, because you're still not making any sense.


SNIP AllYou's response to my arrow which stuck in his head.


Do you have any idea what reality is? Do you have a clue as to what it
is?


I might ask you the same thing. You don't seem to have a clue as to
the difference between notions, ideas, reality, and "absolute", even
after I gave you several definitions for it.


So answer the question. If you think that *reality* has some valid place in
science, then define it, and give me an example of something to which it
applies.


Why should I when you won't answer my question about your "absolute
reality"?


But I did answer your question. you asked me to define absoulte, and I did.
Now you want me to define reality, but I'm not the one who brought up the
subject. You're the one who first used the term, so you define it. Your
continued refusla to do shows that you can't.


No, you did not define it, and you jumped on it to get us all offtract
with your strawman.


My examples would be all that you call "evidence", anyway.


But I'll do more than just call it evidence. I'll also show how science is
simply incapable of determining anything with *absolute* certainty.


Yeah, sure, but don't expect me to hold my breath.


Then that idea is the notion to which I refer.


So you want to discuss ideas about reality? That's what I said at
first, you want to turn a physics discussion about time into a
philosophical discussion about reality, even though you say reality
exists.


I said exactly the opposite. I said there's no way to know what is real and
what is not, and therefore, reality has no place in science.


See, idjit, that's an unsupported philosophical opinion which shows
that you continue to want to turn this into a philosophical
discussion....


It's not philosophical to say which concepts have no place in science. Science
is a default situation wherein only that which is observable is included.


So when did you last observe curved space, or space-time, or a photon
at rest, or parallel universes, or the collapse of a wave function, or
strings, or wormholes, or B.Holes, etc, etc. By your stds, none of
those ideas belong in science.


Nothing else can be included without a logical argument to support it,


I can only imagine where copied those statements from, as I've seen
similar ones, but none so stupid as those.


and
there's no logical argument to support the idea that reality has any place in
science.


You continue to make stupid statements which only show how little you
were taught and how little you have learned about science. You don't
even know what a logical argument is since you never use one to argue
your silly opinions.


Now, if you think there is, then make it. But first, define it.


There is no way to tell what you mean when you say "unquestionable"
above, so you may mean that reality exists, unquestionably, as defined
this way: "Reality real existence: actual being or existence, as
opposed to an imaginary, idealized, or false nature" Microsoft®
Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.


If so, that contradicts your philosophic belief that nothing is real,
or that there is no reality, whichever comes first.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is where your limited intellect let's you down. I never claimed
that
relaity doesn't exist. That's a topic for philosophy. I'm simply
claiming
that
the whole topic (i.e., notion) of reality, the whole subject *of*
relaity
(I'm
not saying that reality is juat a subject) is not one for science
because
science has no way of knowing what is real and what is not.


Well, you're certainly entitled to your own opinions, as I've said
before, but if you believe that reality is absolute, meaning that it
exists as "opposed to an imaginary...or false nature", why do you want
me to give you one example known to be real? You already believe
reality exists, why should I have to prove it to you? Are you so
unsure of what you believe that you need me to prove that what you
believe is correct?


This is actually quite simple, although it may be too complex for you.. My
position is that because there's no way to scientifically know what is real
and
what is not, and there's actually no way to even know if there is a reality,
that any discussion of reality in science is invalid. Now, you're the one
who
raised the subject, so please define it, and please give me an example of
something to which it applies.


NO, you raised the subject;



No, you were the first one to raise it in message
oups.com...


You did.


I never claimed that there was a reality, and I never claimed that time or
anything else either existed or not. All I said was that *time* wasn't
observable, and as such, is just a concept.


OTOH, you've kept insisting that concepts such as *existance* and *reality* have
a valid place in a discussion of science. So support that position and define
those terms, and give examples. It's really that simple. Either you agree with
me that those concepts have no place in science, or you do. Which is it?


I am the one who told you to go to another
ng more apropos. You keep repeating your position as if you are trying
to convince yourself of it. In plain English, I _disagree_ with your
position!!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's no wonder you're so confused, since you don't even know which side
of this debate you're on.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

and that science is incapable of such
precision. All there is in science is observable evidence within the
combined
constraints and combined limitations of our senses, our perceptions,
and
our
instruments.


High school physics - everyone knows that, fool. So what? As far as
physics is concerned, the observable evidence which you disdain so
philosophically is good enough to work with, while your philosophy is
to present obstacles to progress both social and scientific. As I said
previously, you're a shaman from the caves.


You are one sick puppy.


No, you are.


I don't disdain observable evidence,


Yes, you do. You denigrate it as not being reality....


I claim that it's
all that science has to work with. You're the one who' arguing that scince can
also determine what is real and what exists, and so I'm asking you to show me
how that's true.


Now, your turn (and this time, no snipping of the evidence that I've
got
you
boxed in):


But you claim that evidence is not reality, just a figment of our
senses, so how can you claim to use it as support for your strawman
philosophical arguments?


It's only philosophical to raise the prospect that reality and existence has any
place in science. In science, we have our senses, and we have instruments. We
use both to observe. That's just the way it is. To extend this process to
assert that anything *really exists* is the philosophical leap of faith, and
that has no place in science. Observations are we all have, and we build models
using the data thus obtained. That's it.


Yata yata yata, I've heard all that nonsense before (yawn). So what?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not so fast, speedy. You have not defined reality yet. You have
defined your idea of reality, but that does not conform to a physics
definition of reality.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Look dimwit, I never said that time wasn't real, or that it didn't
exist. I
said it wasn't physical. You're the one who misunderstood that
statement.
So
you're the one that raised the subject of reality, and so it's for you
to
define
it.


I too said it wasn't physical. Why keeping beating a dead horse?



You say it's a property, and you've yet to show how a property of something
physical can be non-physical.




I did.


You didn't.


Did.


You: "If you truly believe that time is not part of our reality, but
only
"a
blind assertion", you are mistaken in your belief, and just saying it is
not
so
is only an unsupported assertion which contradicts uncontested reality."

See? You were the first one ever to raise the subject.


Your high intellect has let you down once again, as you completely
missed the point, which was not about reality but about your claim that
time is only a "blind assertion" without making any claims as to why
you think it is a blind assertion. You wanted so badly to talk about
reality that you fixed on my use of the term and did not understand the
point of the statement.


My posts here over the last few years are replete with my justifications of
my
positions. I belive that the physicallity of time is a blind assertion
because
no one has ever demonsrtated it to be otherwise. Can you?


I just did, in this thread.



So you agree that time isn't physical, but now you say that you've demonstrated
that it is. Hmmmmmm. Care to explain?


Your lies cannot be explained, as they come from your inner psychosis.



Your posts all these years are replete
with unsupported opinions more related to and based on philosophic and
metaphysical conjecture than scientific theory or research.


So tell me, in that
sentence, what did *you* mean by reality, and what did you mean by
exist?
And
make sure you can give that answer in a context fit for science.
Whereas
it's
my claim that the subject (i.e., notion) of reality is a philosophical
one,
not
only isn't it my job to define it, it's my position that it's not good
science
to even discuss it in a science context.


Well, why don't you want to define it the way it is defined in physics?


It isn't.


It is. Nyah nyah nyah nyah nana!


If I go to your philosophy ng and talk about it using the definition
of physics, I am sure you would object the same as me.


Meanwhile, you still haven't answer *my*question.

Since you raised the subject (i.e., notion) of reality, then not only
must
you
define it, but certainly you can give me one example of what's real.
Can't
you?
Then, don't forget about the following:

No, I said that the _notion_ of time affects the aging process.


A notion can affect that aging process? A simple concept, born of thought,
can
affect the aging process? This is gonna be rich!

The
idea of time is that it causes aging, but as I've said before, time
has
no power to do anything.

What? Time has no power to do anything, but the notion of it does?


No. The idea of time is that it causes aging, in every instance of
which I am aware. My idea proposes that time has no power to do
anything.


So now you're claiming that you didn't say "I said that the _notion_ of time
affects the aging process", but that you really meant that the current
notion is
that time affects the aginf process. But then again, that's not what you
said.
You said

Me: "What is it that can be affected by the notion of time?"

You: "Right off the bat, I'd say the fact we all grow old and die"

So there it is, right there. Are you now claiming that despite the fact
that I
never asked you what you thought the current ideas of science were, that
your
response was only that? That's a lie, but I'll give you another
chance.....here's the question again, and I want you to tell me *your*
position

"What is it that can be affected by the notion of time?"


Yeah right. Don't hold your breath....


LOL! See what I mean? You answered the question before by saying that aging is
thus affected, but then after backing off that statement, you can't answer it at
all. Therefore, what I first asserted is correct, and that your definition of
time is meaningless.


All that shows is your childish ways of trying to explain your
philosophic beliefs which were instilled in your widdle brain by your
teachers, whom you were unable to ever please and so you feel
inadequate as a real person, which makes you argue that you're not
real.


Me: "What is it that can be affected by the notion of time?"

You: "Right off the bat, I'd say the fact we all grow old and die"

Right there, you said that the notion can affect the aging process.


Yes. The idea of time is that it causes aging, in every instance of
which I am aware. My idea proposes that time has no power to do
anything.


So now you don't believe that time causes aging, or you do? Which is it?


Now you are so confused you're ready for the loony bin. That's what
unshakeable faith in philosophy does to you!



Do you belive that time affects the aging process, or don't you? It's really
not that complicated.


It's not, that's true, I wonder why you cannot understand my answers?


Not only
that, but you said that time was a property of the universe. What do
you
mean
by that? Are you claiming that it's a none physical property? How can
a
property of something physical, not be physical?


In saying time is a property of the universe, I mean that it accrues to
every visible object in the universe just like gravitation is a
property of all massive objects but varies in its strength dependent
upon mass size and structure.

In saying that time is a property of matter, I mean that time passes at
rates for discrete objects dependent upon their states of motion. For
that to be true, time must apply universe-wide to all objects. That
is to say, bodies similar in structure and in their states of motion
will age at about the same rate no matter how far apart they may be.


So time is a non-physical property? What the hell is a non-physical
property?
Can you give me another example of one?


Better yet, you give us an example of a "physical" property.



LOL! you just can't answer a simple question, can you. OK, Mass. Now you give
me a non-physical one.


What a fool you are! An unlearned fool who thinks he has a high
intellect! You don't even know the meaning in physics of mass! You
think it has the same meaning as it does in philosophy. Any science
fan knows that mass is "a physical _quantity_, the _property_ of an
object that is a measure of its inertia, its amount of matter and its
influence in a gravitational field." High school physics!


It is a dimension in which we exist where its
speed depends on our states of motion within the universe. Now define
the way you're using "absolute".


Wait. So time is a dimension AND a property? So time has speed, but
it's
not
physical? How can something which is not physical have speed?


A dimension is a property (a characteristic quality) which defines a
physical quantity. Did your high intellect forget to tell you that?


You just proved you know nothing of science. A dimension is not a property.
No
way, no how.


One more of your famous unsupported opinions!


Your silly opinions show that it is you who knows just enough of
science to form wild and unsupported opinions about it as well as
incorrect facts.

AllYou: According to your philosophy, we should not be discussing
whether something in science is real or not real.
But you are constantly interjecting into discussions the issue that time
is not physical. What is the difference between real and physical in
your philosophy? Don't you see the contradiction in your posts?

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


AllYou! wrote:


[snip]





This is obviously going over your head. Frankly, I don't see how
it's
possible
to ever get through your limited intellect, but I'll try. I'm not
claiming
that
reality *is* a notion,


Yes, you a "The notion of reality" means simply the idea of
reality.... Your high intellect prevents you from see the simple
things in life, like what "notion" means, etc.


That's like saying *the subject of reality*. It doesn't mean that
reality
is
just a subject, nimrod, it means that there is a subject being discussed
and
it's that of reality. Well the same is true of *the notion of reality*.
Not
any different.


Of course it's different, idjit, in plain English, which is too plain
for your high intellect. You don't know English well enough to know
precisely what you mean so you are trying to make up your own English
rules regarding what words mean.



LOL! you really are desperate, aren't you.


Desperate? I'm not the one down the deep hole, dumbell, nor the one
who cannot understand plain English while claiming the highest of
intellects, nor the one making up his own definitions, nor arguing
irrelevant issues. In fact, I'm the one who's bored out of his skin
trying to hold up this conversation, what with your evasiveness and
stupidity.



You say all of that, yet you fail to understand by how when someone says *the
idea of reality*, they don't mean that reality is an idea. Keep clinging to
that interpretation, moron.



SNIP comic book prose....



In other words, it showed how truly stupid you are, and can't bear to have it
republished.