| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Andrew Staker" |
| Date: |
21 Nov 2004 08:40:48 PM |
| Object: |
Something only exists if we can prove it does |
Or so you'd think would be the premise, LOL
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
21 Nov 2004 10:35:24 PM |
|
|
"Andrew Staker" <andrew.staker@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41a1516f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Or so you'd think would be the premise, LOL
No, it's "You're justified in saying something exists only if you can prove
it exists."
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
22 Nov 2004 08:40:52 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Andrew Staker" <andrew.staker@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41a1516f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Or so you'd think would be the premise, LOL
No, it's "You're justified in saying something exists only if you can prove
it exists."
What about the poor guy Marconi who invented the radio. Don't you know people
thought he was nuts--trying to prove that voice transmissions can travel the
airwaves. Most truly great discoveries usually begin with: "I believe this
improbable thing really exists." Intuition normally precedes invention, does
it not?
Denny
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
22 Nov 2004 10:05:09 AM |
|
|
"dgillesp" <dgillesp@NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:41A1FA74.F40D1E10@NOSPAM.net...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Andrew Staker" <andrew.staker@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41a1516f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Or so you'd think would be the premise, LOL
No, it's "You're justified in saying something exists only if you can
prove
it exists."
What about the poor guy Marconi who invented the radio.
What about him, he proved it existed. He justified his statement.
Don't you know people
thought he was nuts--trying to prove that voice transmissions can travel
the
airwaves.
Who cares what people thought?
Did Marconi have observations that led him to believe radio was possible?
Yes he did. Thus his statement was justified.
Most truly great discoveries usually begin with: "I believe this
improbable thing really exists."
No. The great discoveries begin with "How do I explain this observation".
Intuition normally precedes invention, does
it not?
Yes, but observation precedes intuition. And the observation part is what
justifies the intuition.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Abner Mintz" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
22 Nov 2004 04:58:21 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
No, it's "You're justified in saying something exists only if
you can prove it exists."
dgillesp <dgillesp@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
What about the poor guy Marconi who invented the radio.
He showed that radio waves existed and could be used for
communications, and was thus justified in saying so. His
demonstration is really quite convincing - I don't know of a
single person who denies that radios work. Too bad you don't
have anything to match it ...
Most truly great discoveries usually begin with: "I believe this
improbable thing really exists."
I've read quite a few such stories, and they generally begin
quite differently: they begin with 'let's see if I can get this
to work'. Quite a few 'failure' stories begin the same way,
of course. The disadvantage of your version is that the
people who believe something wrong keep believing even
though their approach just doesn't work, while the people
who are trying to see if it can work can be quite persistent
but don't tend to slip over the line into delusional behavior.
Intuition normally precedes invention, does it not?
Intuition doesn't require belief - we can admit that our
intuitive guess is a guess, test it to see if it works, and
either modify or abandon it if it doesn't.
You have never showed that your God exists, you have
never shown any great discovery, and you have never
supported your intuition that it exists. Until you do,
trying to put your belief into the same category as the
discovery of the radio slanders Marconi.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
22 Nov 2004 10:37:02 AM |
|
|
On Mon 22 Nov 2004 08:40:52a, dgillesp <dgillesp@NOSPAM.net> kicked back
with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint,
then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Andrew Staker" <andrew.staker@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41a1516f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Or so you'd think would be the premise, LOL
No, it's "You're justified in saying something exists only if you can
prove it exists."
What about the poor guy Marconi who invented the radio. Don't you
know people thought he was nuts--trying to prove that voice
transmissions can travel the airwaves. Most truly great discoveries
usually begin with: "I believe this improbable thing really exists."
Intuition normally precedes invention, does it not?
Sure, but then you've got to prove that your intuition was correct --
which Marconi did. You can't just have a spark of inspiration and then
tell everybody to start using it. You've got to prove you were right
first.
I suggest you do what Marconi did -- prove that you're right instead of
whining that "intuition precedes invention" and expecting us to accept
the truth of your intuition when you haven't verified it.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
22 Nov 2004 11:06:46 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:40:52 -0500, dgillesp <dgillesp@NOSPAM.net>
said in alt.atheism:
What about the poor guy Marconi who invented the radio. Don't you know people
thought he was nuts--trying to prove that voice transmissions can travel the
airwaves.
He wasn't trying to prove anything - Hertz had already proved that
energy could be transmitted and received. Marconi was merely trying
to send a transmission across the Atlantic.
Most truly great discoveries usually begin with: "I believe this
improbable thing really exists."
Nothing was improbable (anything that is, is 100% "probable") and he
didn't prove, or try to prove, that something existed.
Intuition normally precedes invention, does it not?
No, it sometimes does. At other times it's serendipity.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
22 Nov 2004 11:33:16 AM |
|
|
dgillesp <dgillesp@NOSPAM.net> wrote in
news:41A1FA74.F40D1E10@NOSPAM.net:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Andrew Staker" <andrew.staker@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41a1516f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Or so you'd think would be the premise, LOL
No, it's "You're justified in saying something exists only if you can
prove it exists."
What about the poor guy Marconi who invented the radio. Don't you
know people thought he was nuts--trying to prove that voice
transmissions can travel the airwaves. Most truly great discoveries
usually begin with: "I believe this improbable thing really exists."
Not at all. Marconi's invention followed after the observations of many
electrical experimenters before him.
And besides, Tesla beat him to it. :-)
Intuition normally precedes invention, does it not?
It does not. Most inventions follow upon observation of some real
phenomenon.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Save Your Dixie Cups, The South Will Rise Again!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
22 Nov 2004 03:48:35 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
news:Xns95A97FB8832A1fstone69@207.69.189.191:
dgillesp <dgillesp@NOSPAM.net> wrote in
news:41A1FA74.F40D1E10@NOSPAM.net:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Andrew Staker" <andrew.staker@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41a1516f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Or so you'd think would be the premise, LOL
No, it's "You're justified in saying something exists only if you can
prove it exists."
What about the poor guy Marconi who invented the radio. Don't you
know people thought he was nuts--trying to prove that voice
transmissions can travel the airwaves. Most truly great discoveries
usually begin with: "I believe this improbable thing really exists."
Not at all. Marconi's invention followed after the observations of many
electrical experimenters before him.
And besides, Tesla beat him to it. :-)
In fact Hertz was the first to demonstrate transmission of EM waves. The
phenomena was very well understood (Maxwell's equations), long before
Marconi solved some of the engineeing tricks to efficiently generating
and receiving EM waves. (The key word being efficiently).
LK.
Intuition normally precedes invention, does it not?
It does not. Most inventions follow upon observation of some real
phenomenon.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
22 Nov 2004 03:23:40 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
< snip >
Not at all. Marconi's invention followed after the observations of many
electrical experimenters before him.
And besides, Tesla beat him to it. :-)
Yeah? Well...well...does Tesla get mentioned in Starship's "We Built
This City"? No! Marconi does! So...hah!
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
22 Nov 2004 02:17:34 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
dgillesp <dgillesp@NOSPAM.net> wrote in
news:41A1FA74.F40D1E10@NOSPAM.net:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Andrew Staker" <andrew.staker@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41a1516f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Or so you'd think would be the premise, LOL
No, it's "You're justified in saying something exists only if you can
prove it exists."
What about the poor guy Marconi who invented the radio. Don't you
know people thought he was nuts--trying to prove that voice
transmissions can travel the airwaves. Most truly great discoveries
usually begin with: "I believethisimprobablethingreallyexists.
Not at all. Marconi's invention followed after the observations of many
electrical experimenters before him.
And besides, Tesla beat him to it. :-)
Intuition normally precedes invention, does it not?
It does not. Most inventions follow upon observation of some real
phenomenon.
But it often requires something beyond mere observation. Why is it that
many atheists have a problem with intuition? Maybe it doesn't fit too well
with the dogma of scientific method? Or because it's apparently beyond
human control? Or have you never just "known" something to be true and
unable to give any reason or explanation for it, and later found it was
actually the case? If you haven't you've missed out on a lot.
Denny
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Save Your Dixie Cups, The South Will Rise Again!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
22 Nov 2004 03:00:46 PM |
|
|
"dgillesp" <dgillesp@NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:41A2495E.D9051E91@NOSPAM.net...
Fred Stone wrote:
dgillesp <dgillesp@NOSPAM.net> wrote in
news:41A1FA74.F40D1E10@NOSPAM.net:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Andrew Staker" <andrew.staker@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41a1516f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Or so you'd think would be the premise, LOL
No, it's "You're justified in saying something exists only if you can
prove it exists."
What about the poor guy Marconi who invented the radio. Don't you
know people thought he was nuts--trying to prove that voice
transmissions can travel the airwaves. Most truly great discoveries
usually begin with: "I believethisimprobablethingreallyexists.
Not at all. Marconi's invention followed after the observations of many
electrical experimenters before him.
And besides, Tesla beat him to it. :-)
Intuition normally precedes invention, does it not?
It does not. Most inventions follow upon observation of some real
phenomenon.
But it often requires something beyond mere observation.
Well yeah, you have to put 2 and 2 together. You have to realize that your
observations imply things. That's where genius comes in.
Why is it that
many atheists have a problem with intuition?
Well, we see many theists intuitively convinced of their gods, regardless of
the fact that the description of the gods are mutually exclusive. Since, at
best, only one description of a god can be correct, the thousands of other
intuited gods must be wrong.
This indicates that intuition is a suck-***** way of arriving at truth, and
the odds indicate that it's far more likely that all of the intuited gods
are false.
Maybe it doesn't fit too well
with the dogma of scientific method?
No, it's that it doesn't fit well with logic or common sense. My "intuition"
is far more often wrong than right.
Or because it's apparently beyond
human control?
No, I have learned to avoid going by my intuition, so clearly my gullibility
is controllable to some extent.
Or have you never just "known" something to be true and
unable to give any reason or explanation for it, and later found it was
actually the case?
Yes, but the odds are against it.
A stopped clock can be right twice a day. That doesn't mean you should rely
upon it to tell you the time.
If you haven't you've missed out on a lot.
I have missed out on a lot of unwarrented assumptions that could have got me
into lots of trouble.
Thanks, I'll pass.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
22 Nov 2004 02:33:25 PM |
|
|
dgillesp <dgillesp@NOSPAM.net> wrote in
news:41A2495E.D9051E91@NOSPAM.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
dgillesp <dgillesp@NOSPAM.net> wrote in
news:41A1FA74.F40D1E10@NOSPAM.net:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Andrew Staker" <andrew.staker@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41a1516f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Or so you'd think would be the premise, LOL
No, it's "You're justified in saying something exists only if you
can prove it exists."
What about the poor guy Marconi who invented the radio. Don't you
know people thought he was nuts--trying to prove that voice
transmissions can travel the airwaves. Most truly great
discoveries usually begin with: "I
believethisimprobablethingreallyexists.
Not at all. Marconi's invention followed after the observations of
many electrical experimenters before him.
And besides, Tesla beat him to it. :-)
Intuition normally precedes invention, does it not?
It does not. Most inventions follow upon observation of some real
phenomenon.
But it often requires something beyond mere observation. Why is it
that many atheists have a problem with intuition? Maybe it doesn't
fit too well with the dogma of scientific method?
No, it fits just fine; as the *first* step, not the end product.
Remember what Edison said: "Invention is 1% inspiration and 99%
perspiration."
Or because it's apparently beyond human control?
But it's not. It might be beyond *conscious* control, but that's
something else again.
Or have you never just "known"
something to be true and unable to give any reason or explanation for
it, and later found it was actually the case?
Not as often as I've found out later that it was *not* actually the
case. But we tend to ignore those cases or simply forget them.
If you haven't you've missed out on a lot.
Intuition is just fine, as long as it is followed by investigation. It's
when you let your imagination (intuition) become the sole source of your
beliefs that we atheists have a problem.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Save Your Dixie Cups, The South Will Rise Again!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
22 Nov 2004 03:51:27 PM |
|
|
dgillesp <dgillesp@NOSPAM.net> wrote in
news:41A2495E.D9051E91@NOSPAM.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
dgillesp <dgillesp@NOSPAM.net> wrote in
news:41A1FA74.F40D1E10@NOSPAM.net:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Andrew Staker" <andrew.staker@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41a1516f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Or so you'd think would be the premise, LOL
No, it's "You're justified in saying something exists only if you
can prove it exists."
What about the poor guy Marconi who invented the radio. Don't you
know people thought he was nuts--trying to prove that voice
transmissions can travel the airwaves. Most truly great
discoveries usually begin with: "I
believethisimprobablethingreallyexists.
Not at all. Marconi's invention followed after the observations of
many electrical experimenters before him.
And besides, Tesla beat him to it. :-)
Intuition normally precedes invention, does it not?
Intuition is involved but it usually sits on a body of pre existing
knowlege.
It does not. Most inventions follow upon observation of some real
phenomenon.
But it often requires something beyond mere observation. Why is it
that many atheists have a problem with intuition?
We don't. What we have trouble with, is the likes of yourself attempting
to revise history.
LK.
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Abner Mintz" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
22 Nov 2004 04:58:22 PM |
|
|
dgillesp <dgillesp@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
But it often requires something beyond mere observation. Why is it that
many atheists have a problem with intuition? Maybe it doesn't fit too well
with the dogma of scientific method?
We don't have trouble with it and it fits just fine into the scientific
method: intuition is a great way of generating hypotheses. The
hypotheses have to come from *somewhere*, and quite a few of
them are generated intuitively - then, like all other hypotheses
that get anywhere by the scientific method, they get tested.
Sadly, too many people get so enamoured of their intuition
that they refuse to test their hypotheses, and attack the
scientific method for not accomodating them. Perhaps that's
why you refer to it as a dogma, because it doesn't just
rubber-stamp yours?
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
29 Nov 2004 09:55:52 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 22:58:22 GMT, (Abner
Mintz) wrote:
dgillesp <dgillesp@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
But it often requires something beyond mere observation. Why is it that
many atheists have a problem with intuition? Maybe it doesn't fit too well
with the dogma of scientific method?
We don't have trouble with it and it fits just fine into the scientific
method: intuition is a great way of generating hypotheses. The
hypotheses have to come from *somewhere*, and quite a few of
them are generated intuitively - then, like all other hypotheses
that get anywhere by the scientific method, they get tested.
Sadly, too many people get so enamoured of their intuition
that they refuse to test their hypotheses, and attack the
scientific method for not accomodating them. Perhaps that's
why you refer to it as a dogma, because it doesn't just
rubber-stamp yours?
Rubber stamp his two millenia failed superstition. Denny can't handle
reality. He doesn't have to worry much longer-he'll be worm food very
very soon-a year, two, maybe three.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
22 Nov 2004 02:31:38 PM |
|
|
| But it often requires something beyond mere observation. Why is it that
| many atheists have a problem with intuition? Maybe it doesn't fit too
well
| with the dogma of scientific method? Or because it's apparently beyond
| human control? Or have you never just "known" something to be true and
| unable to give any reason or explanation for it, and later found it was
| actually the case? If you haven't you've missed out on a lot.
science has no specific problem(s) with intuition! in fact, they label it
"a-priori". even still, all "intuition" is coalesced experience. once cannot
know the "truth" of that experience unless the rules of logic and science
are applied. i've often though, a-priori, that a number of theories i held
were true only later to find them *false*. so again, one simply does not
know the state or value of the a-priori until there is evidence in the
affirmative for the case. i find i'd miss out on a lot should i assume an
un-supported claim was true or false without checking...i think i'd miss my
intellectual integrity the most however!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
22 Nov 2004 03:45:20 PM |
|
|
dgillesp <dgillesp@NOSPAM.net> wrote in
news:41A1FA74.F40D1E10@NOSPAM.net:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Andrew Staker" <andrew.staker@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41a1516f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Or so you'd think would be the premise, LOL
No, it's "You're justified in saying something exists only if you can
prove it exists."
What about the poor guy Marconi who invented the radio. Don't you
know people thought he was nuts--trying to prove that voice
transmissions can travel the airwaves. Most truly great discoveries
usually begin with: "I believe this improbable thing really exists."
Intuition normally precedes invention, does it not?
That is just engineering. The actual discoveries were made by the likes
of Hertz, Faraday, Ampere and codified by Maxwell. Maxwell's equations
which fully describe the behaviour of EM waves were written down long
before Marconi figured out how to efficiently generate and receive them.
Marconi was building on the work of others.
LK.
Denny
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
29 Nov 2004 02:14:05 PM |
|
|
dgillesp <dgillesp@NOSPAM.net> wrote in message news:<41A1FA74.F40D1E10@NOSPAM.net>...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Andrew Staker" <andrew.staker@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41a1516f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Or so you'd think would be the premise, LOL
No, it's "You're justified in saying something exists only if you can prove
it exists."
What about the poor guy Marconi who invented the radio. Don't you know people
thought he was nuts--trying to prove that voice transmissions can travel the
airwaves. Most truly great discoveries usually begin with: "I believe this
improbable thing really exists." Intuition normally precedes invention, does
it not?
Invention ... god belief ... You may be onto something there.
-Hy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
22 Nov 2004 09:03:17 AM |
|
|
dgillesp wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Andrew Staker" <andrew.staker@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41a1516f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Or so you'd think would be the premise, LOL
No, it's "You're justified in saying something exists only if you can prove
it exists."
What about the poor guy Marconi who invented the radio. Don't you know people
thought he was nuts--trying to prove that voice transmissions can travel the
airwaves. Most truly great discoveries usually begin with: "I believe this
improbable thing really exists." Intuition normally precedes invention, does
it not?
yup! and note that Marconi *did* prove it was possible...so
he *is* justified in saying so.
Quite a contrast from religious claims.
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
22 Nov 2004 10:08:02 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:35:24 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Andrew Staker" <andrew.staker@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41a1516f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Or so you'd think would be the premise, LOL
No, it's "You're justified in saying something exists only if you can prove
it exists."
I think I preferred Brian's version :-)
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ronald Dean" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
22 Nov 2004 10:38:19 AM |
|
|
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:2m34q0haeujfgumun2egef92vlmag1efkg@4ax.com...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:35:24 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Andrew Staker" <andrew.staker@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41a1516f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Or so you'd think would be the premise, LOL
No, it's "You're justified in saying something exists only if you can
prove
it exists."
I think I preferred Brian's version :-)
If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, was it accompanied
by sound?
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Witziges Rätsel" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
22 Nov 2004 05:45:48 PM |
|
|
If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, was it accompanied
by sound?
Why does the tree always have to fall in a forest? If nobody
heard a tree that fell in the suburbs, would that mean there'd
have to be some noise? What if a tree fell on a desert island?
Or an iceberg? Or a boulevard? What about a tree falling in
a broccoli field or a copper mine?
.
|
|
|
| User: "X" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
23 Nov 2004 01:57:50 PM |
|
|
Witziges Rätsel wrote:
If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, was it accompanied
by sound?
Why does the tree always have to fall in a forest? If nobody
heard a tree that fell in the suburbs, would that mean there'd
have to be some noise? What if a tree fell on a desert island?
Or an iceberg? Or a boulevard? What about a tree falling in
a broccoli field or a copper mine?
Just go out in the front hall and push the coat tree over. Repeat the
experiment as many times as you like, I guarantee you will find that it
consistently sets off vibrations in the air which the human ear and
brain working together interpret as 'sound'. Remove all humans from the
scene and leave a vibration sensor (a tape recorder for example) in
place and I guarantee you will find the same results.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
23 Nov 2004 06:28:30 PM |
|
|
In article <2DMod.138295$HA.137422@attbi_s01>, X <x@nospam.net> wrote:
Witziges Rätsel wrote:
If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, was it accompanied
by sound?
Why does the tree always have to fall in a forest? If nobody
heard a tree that fell in the suburbs, would that mean there'd
have to be some noise? What if a tree fell on a desert island?
Or an iceberg? Or a boulevard? What about a tree falling in
a broccoli field or a copper mine?
Just go out in the front hall and push the coat tree over. Repeat the
experiment as many times as you like, I guarantee you will find that it
consistently sets off vibrations in the air which the human ear and
brain working together interpret as 'sound'. Remove all humans from the
scene and leave a vibration sensor (a tape recorder for example) in
place and I guarantee you will find the same results.
And if there is nobody to monitor the sensor, or it fails to operate?
The original question (tree in the forest) is not about the issue of
whether there will be vibrations in the air, but about whether "sound"
refers to the vibrations themselves or wehther it refers to the
detection of those vibrations. It is a matter of the particular
definition one is using of the word "sound", which is sometimes used in
the one sense and sometimes in the other..
Since Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon,is notoriously unreliable in
all matters of word definitions, one would be wise to ignore his
contributions to any discussion in which proper definition of words is
of any consideration.
.
|
|
|
| User: "steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
23 Nov 2004 07:47:05 PM |
|
|
| The original question (tree in the forest) is not about the issue of
| whether there will be vibrations in the air, but about whether "sound"
| refers to the vibrations themselves or wehther it refers to the
| detection of those vibrations. It is a matter of the particular
| definition one is using of the word "sound", which is sometimes used in
| the one sense and sometimes in the other..
it is neither of the two options you provide. sound is the term we give that
describes the effects of a causal event. detection thereof is perception not
sound itself. neither is sound the vibrations in the air as you put in
laymen's terms. sound is a description. the laws governing the production of
that which we ascribe the word sound will be consistent regardless of
observation. we know this however because of observation. we have only a
description of god and are wholly without observable evidence to which we
can the notion.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
22 Nov 2004 03:24:21 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:38:19 -0500, "Ronald Dean"
<rdhsr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:2m34q0haeujfgumun2egef92vlmag1efkg@4ax.com...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:35:24 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Andrew Staker" <andrew.staker@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41a1516f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Or so you'd think would be the premise, LOL
No, it's "You're justified in saying something exists only if you can
prove
it exists."
I think I preferred Brian's version :-)
If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, was it accompanied
by sound?
Interesting philospohical question but how is it relevant?
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Esther Medina" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does=sound wave |
22 Nov 2004 05:01:02 PM |
|
|
Actually our brain causes us to hear the "sound". If there is no brain
around. then the waves "just are" and we don't know how how other objects
interpret them.
maravill
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:54m4q01t1antt6d5ustcv4is82jql382hk@4ax.com...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:38:19 -0500, "Ronald Dean"
<rdhsr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:2m34q0haeujfgumun2egef92vlmag1efkg@4ax.com...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:35:24 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Andrew Staker" <andrew.staker@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41a1516f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Or so you'd think would be the premise, LOL
No, it's "You're justified in saying something exists only if you can
prove
it exists."
I think I preferred Brian's version :-)
If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, was it accompanied
by sound?
Interesting philospohical question but how is it relevant?
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does=sound wave |
22 Nov 2004 05:38:29 PM |
|
|
"Esther Medina" <maravill@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Pcuod.93936$%x.36109@okepread04...
| Actually our brain causes us to hear the "sound". If there is no brain
| around. then the waves "just are" and we don't know how how other objects
| interpret them.
| maravill
our brain is not causal to the production of sound. we can also know exactly
how other objects interpret them through observation and experimentation.
that nifty number is commonly the persuit of animal experimentation (bats,
pit vipers, birds of prey, etc., etc., etc.) the laws governing sound are
immutable and are not subject to change based on whom is doing the
observing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
22 Nov 2004 01:31:15 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:38:19 -0500, "Ronald Dean" <rdhsr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:2m34q0haeujfgumun2egef92vlmag1efkg@4ax.com...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:35:24 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Andrew Staker" <andrew.staker@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41a1516f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Or so you'd think would be the premise, LOL
No, it's "You're justified in saying something exists only if you can
prove
it exists."
I think I preferred Brian's version :-)
If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, was it accompanied
by sound?
And what was the time signature?
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
For e-mail, hold that tiger!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Something only exists if we can prove it does |
22 Nov 2004 11:19:44 AM |
|
|
| If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, was it accompanied
| by sound?
if god exists but gives no indication (evidence) that she does, should not
she be considered inconsequencial? quite the opposite is true here. since we
know all the properties of sound and energy we can predict that if the tree
did make noise when falling and were there an observer present to witness
the even, sound would indeed be heard (if the observer was not deaf, etc.,
etc.). there is no indication that sound would be generated nor observed
differently. as sound is evidence for something else, whether we observe its
occurance is inconsequencial. there is a sharp contrast between the
importance of god and sound.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
