We dont change; Science studies change--data, particles, galaxies, relativity; Are matter, space, time the only scientific concepts for Our Existence? Observation and Transformation interact with matter in space and time; Causing the actuality of Our Being Here and Our Existence; We observe change, Our understandings change, We dont change.
We don`t change.
Arnoldg, I assume that you have accepted the existence of the material universe as a true proposition.
If this is so, science tells us that every material things are loosing some particles from one second to another.
If you accept the above sentence as a true proposition, you have to admit that if material things constantly loosing some particles it means they are changing - even unnoticeable to us.
We, human beings are basically material things and we are changing all the time - even it is unnoticeable in the short period, it is more obvious in the long run.
As concepts and opinions also through most mathematical applications for our times–yes, Although I am surprised Democritus does not challenge Being–
Where my questions come in, are when my descriptions, and yours, include thoughts that are transitional and transform objects of study,
like, “loosing and means”; Using Science and Observation to try to Understand what and why about these Movements, I have, for the last three months,
been posting my thoughts about transformation and observation interacting with matter space and time (Going for the whole not the part).
Objects for Philosophers today, who use science to inquire about Being, could be—
Describing “Qualia” from Neronal Ocillations; and, “Light “Wave-Particle Duality” from curvature relativity;
and (CERN announcing), “the particle “Linked” to the “Mechanism" that “Gives" Mass to Elementary Particles"—
---- how “linked”—what “mechanism”—who “gives”?—ref: NPR 3/14/2013—- thanks
arnoldg, what the hell are babbling about here???
You look like you’re using a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.
arnoldg, what the hell are babbling about here???? You look like you're using a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.I think the best explanation is arnoldg is some sort of computer program. Stephen
I think the best explanation is arnoldg is some sort of computer program.Yeah, but it must be improved a lot. It just seems to pick up some words, and generates a few sentences based on it, that sound deep. However it is not able to partake in a real dialogue. Every trial in this direction is just reacted upon in the same algorithm, without any improvement. I think we should let the programmer know he failed the Turing test miserably, and that he should refrain from further inputs here until he radically improved his program, a program worth to be called 'arnoldg 2.0'. I would prefer he would use his own blog-Website for this, instead of misusing the CFI-Fora for this.
I think the best explanation is arnoldg is some sort of computer program.Kinda reminds me of that "Makaj" guy who haunted the About.com Biology forum several years ago advocating Young Earth Creationism. The difference was that he/she/they were at least coherent and understandable. When somebody exposed it for what it was, whoever was behind it quickly went away.
We don`t change; Science studies change--data, particles, galaxies, relativity; Are matter, space, time the only scientific concepts for Our Existence? Observation and Transformation interact with matter in space and time; Causing the actuality of Our Being Here and Our Existence; We observe change, Our understandings change, We don`t change.You'll understand better if you study determinism. We do change all the time. We simply have no control over how we change or what triggers the changes and we often have no awareness of the changes as they take place. Www.determinism.com is a good place to start.
E Tu Brute—
What does not change in the cosmos universe, how is it possible that you know that everything changes,
What philosophy works toward the premise of everything changes, if there is none, then take on the verb “to be”,
You will begin to see the relation of Being and Existence does not change in time space and that
and we are what matters as matter, our bodies change we can not change, We are the results of
3000 years of philosophical thought, determinism (function) is easy, if you know what you are here for,
Is philosophy today for understanding your Being Existence as determined by time space matter?
The first effect of the big bang was curvature, We are a part of that duality
You'll understand better if you study determinism. We do change all the time. We simply have no control over how we change or what triggers the changes and we often have no awareness of the changes as they take place. Www.determinism.com is a good place to start.Lois, please, do not feed the troll. Arnoldg is obviously not here for discussion and enlightenment. I think Stephen Lawrence nailed it: Arnoldg is a bad computer program. The account's non-suspension is evidence the moderators around here are often too lenient with new members, even when a new member does nothing but pollute the forums with nonsense.
Darrron, we have been in discussion on this matter, however unfortunately not all of us are around every day.
arnoldg has been warned in the past.
You'll understand better if you study determinism. We do change all the time. We simply have no control over how we change or what triggers the changes and we often have no awareness of the changes as they take place. Www.determinism.com is a good place to start.Lois, please, do not feed the troll. Arnoldg is obviously not here for discussion and enlightenment. I think Stephen Lawrence nailed it: Arnoldg is a bad computer program. The account's non-suspension is evidence the moderators around here are often too lenient with new members, even when a new member does nothing but pollute the forums with nonsense. Ok, thanks.
I accepted Dougs warning but could not resit a exit topic (philosophy of cosmos universe). Since then I have tried to only respond to replies to my posts, but, your proprietary notions through enlightened discussions, from and about, Philosophys history, have been just to irresistible,
for, letting “Observation and Being” shoot across the bow of “function for reason” philosophies",
I am trying to stop now, then, maybe, “you won`t have me to kick around anymore”—
Arnoldg is a bad computer program.I'm not so sure about that. He's shown as having edited some earlier posts of his. I think what we have here is somebody trying way too hard to be profound but all he can manage is a meaningless word salad.
Ya probably not a computer program but most likely someone who’s stoned AND reading lots of esoteric philosophy. Used to be my own hobby many many moons ago.
From Ontology - Wikipedia
Some fundamental questions
Principal questions of ontology are "What can be said to exist?", "Into what categories, if any, can we sort existing things?", "What are the meanings of being?", "What are the various modes of being of entities?".Parmenides and monism
Parmenides was among the first to propose an ontological characterization of the fundamental nature of existence. In his prologue or proem he describes two views of existence; initially that nothing comes from nothing, and therefore existence is eternal. Consequently our opinions about truth must often be false and deceitful. Most of western philosophy, and science - including the fundamental concepts of falsifiability and the conservation of energy - have emerged from this view. This posits that existence is what can be conceived of by thought, created, or possessed. Hence, there can be neither void nor vacuum; and true reality can neither come into being nor vanish from existence. Rather, the entirety of creation is eternal, uniform, and immutable, though not infinite (he characterized its shape as that of a perfect sphere). Parmenides thus posits that change, as perceived in everyday experience, is illusory. Everything that can be apprehended is but one part of a single entity. This idea somewhat anticipates the modern concept of an ultimate grand unification theory that finally explains all of existence in terms of one inter-related sub-atomic reality which applies to everything.The views that "nothing comes from nothing and therefore existence is eternal" and "there can be neither void nor vacuum; and true reality can neither come into being nor vanish from existence" are crucial in his philosophy of reality. If the ultimate reality of the universe is a single entity, then any change as observed by an observer in the universe is "illusory" (because the universe as a single entity is eternal, uniform and immutable) unless the observer is not a part of the universe observing it as a single entity, which is impossible. However, any observer (as a part of the universe) can and do observe change as fundamental in the universe and that is not illusory. This is expressed in process philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy
In opposition to the classical model of change as purely accidental and illusory (as by Aristotle), process philosophy regards change as the cornerstone of reality–the cornerstone of the Being thought as Becoming.
kkwan, This is expressed in process philosophy.This reminds me of David Bohm's philosophy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy "In opposition to the classical model of change as purely accidental and illusory (as by Aristotle), process philosophy regards change as the cornerstone of reality–the cornerstone of the Being thought as Becoming".
“Process philosophy”, it seems to me, is just ordinary philosophy with weaker identity conditions: more things count as “processes” than as traditionally understood “things”. E.g., there’s the “process” of warming temperatures as well as the “process” of being President Obama.
Ugh, I didn’t know what “process” philosophy was until Doug explained it. I was happy in my ignorance; now I’m annoyed by the silliness of it. Thanks, Doug. :sick: :lol:
Occam