Sound evidence and reason for god (s) free

[ProfessorDavey]

You are asserting that I am adding an entity but that is not Occam. It's adding unnecessary entities.
You have to justify your positive assertion that a rule setting entity is unnecessary for rules.

Absolute non-sense.

Occam is typically stated as:

'Entities should not be multiplied without necessity' or
'The simplest solution is most likely the right one' or
'When presented with competing hypotheses that make the same predictions, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions'

Occam places the onus on the person adding an entity OR proposing a solution which is not the most simple OR proposing a solution which does not include the fewest assumptions to justify that those entities, additional complexities or additional assumptions are necessary.

To suggest that the onus is on the person prosing the simplest solution with the least entities or assumptions to justify why there are not more entities/assumptions or greater complexities is the complete opposite of Occam.

In this case you are adding more entities (a ruler) a less simple solution (the need for a ruler) and one with greater assumptions (the requirement for a ruler) - therefore the onus is entirely on you to justify why those additional entities/assumptions/complexities are necessary. Over to you Vlad.

I would only have to justify my simpler solution under Occam if someone else were proposing an even simpler one again.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Absolute non-sense.

Occam is typically stated as:

'Entities should not be multiplied without necessity' or
'The simplest solution is most likely the right one' or
'When presented with competing hypotheses that make the same predictions, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions'

Occam places the onus on the person adding an entity OR proposing a solution which is not the most simple OR proposing a solution which does not include the fewest assumptions to justify that those entities, additional complexities or additional assumptions are necessary.

To suggest that the onus is on the person prosing the simplest solution with the least entities or assumptions to justify why there are not more entities/assumptions or greater complexities is the complete opposite of Occam.

In this case you are adding more entities (a ruler) a less simple solution (the need for a ruler) and one with greater assumptions (the requirement for a ruler) - therefore the onus is entirely on you to justify why those additional entities/assumptions/complexities are necessary. Over to you Vlad.

I would only have to justify my simpler solution under Occam if someone else were proposing an even simpler one again.

But there are massive holes in your solution which so far comprises of a set of rules, which you yourself question whether they can arise unconsciously.....a set of rules that exist independently of time and space, capable of governing every particle and scintilla of matter in the universe with precision.

We are inevitably back to the question you have avoided since the start. In what manner do these rules exist not dependent on time and space? How do they govern what is in time and space and whether they are the last thing in the hierarchy apart from chance or a personal rule setter.

The key is in the puzzle of how you possibly think your solution is such.

[Gordon]

But there are massive holes in your solution which so far comprises of a set of rules, which you yourself question whether they can arise unconsciously.....a set of rules that exist independently of time and space, capable of governing every particle and scintilla of matter in the universe with precision.

We are inevitably back to the question you have avoided since the start. In what manner do these rules exist not dependent on time and space? How do they govern what is in time and space and whether they are the last thing in the hierarchy apart from chance or a personal rule setter.

The key is in the puzzle of how you possibly think your solution is such.

This of yours is silliness squared, Vlad.

1. "every particle and scintilla of matter" will do what they do and the rules you speak of are a human provisional description of how "every particle and scintilla of matter" appears to operate - and "every particle and scintilla of matter" is blissfully unaware of these rules (or anything else for that matter).

2. These rules don't "govern" anything, Vlad: they just describe how phenomena apparently operate where, for some odd reason, you seem to think they are prescriptive. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This of yours is silliness squared, Vlad.

1. "every particle and scintilla of matter" will do what they do and the rules you speak of are a human provisional description of how "every particle and scintilla of matter" appears to operate - and "every particle and scintilla of matter" is blissfully unaware of these rules (or anything else for that matter).

2. These rules don't "govern" anything, Vlad: they just describe how phenomena apparently operate where, for some odd reason, you seem to think they are prescriptive.

For the second or third time Gordon the Professor himself proposed Laws of nature which had existence which was not dependent on time and space.

Since you have made many positive assertions regarding the nature of the laws though perhaps you might break the habit of a lifetime and start justifying them.

The idea that the laws may have an existence free of time and space is not unknown in science. Tegmark and others would say that the universe is just the physicalisation of mathematics and of course there is simulated universe theory too.

Where I am with you is that the professor has not managed to scotch your thesis that the laws are just observed physical phenomena so a proposal of extra universal laws is itself an unnecessary entity but then again I would ask you ''why are there rules which are so defined?'' and what about the unreasonable influence of mathematics on physics? a question posed about 60 years ago by Eugene Wigner.

[Stranger]

The idea that the laws may have an existence free of time and space is not unknown in science. Tegmark and others would say that the universe is just the physicalisation of mathematics and of course there is simulated universe theory too.

Where I am with you is that the professor has not managed to scotch your thesis that the laws are just observed physical phenomena so a proposal of extra universal laws is itself an unnecessary entity but then again I would ask you ''why are there rules which are so defined?'' and what about the unreasonable influence of mathematics on physics? a question posed about 60 years ago by Eugene Wigner.

We don't actually know if the rules exist in some sense apart from them being human descriptions of how stuff behaves. However, if we say for the sake of argument that they do, then adding a rule maker doesn't make the whole situation any less mysterious. We wouldn't know in what way or why the rules existed or we wouldn't know in what way or why the rule maker existed. Hence the addition of the rule maker is unnecessary as it doesn't explain anything.

Yet again: the existence of an unknown is not a justification for you to populate it with your favourite myth and demand that others offer an alternative "explanation" if they don't agree. Your "explanation" has just as many unknowns as the problem you started with and the onus is on you to justify it, not on others to come up with alternatives.

[Gordon]

For the second or third time Gordon the Professor himself proposed Laws of nature which had existence which was not dependent on time and space.

In which post(s)?

Since you have made many positive assertions regarding the nature of the laws though perhaps you might break the habit of a lifetime and start justifying them.

I've said that these 'laws' have been articulated by humans and that, I would have thought, is self-evident.

The idea that the laws may have an existence free of time and space is not unknown in science. Tegmark and others would say that the universe is just the physicalisation of mathematics and of course there is simulated universe theory too.

Sounds to me like you're just throwing ideas into a bowl and then mixing them up - a bit like Eton Mess.

Where I am with you is that the professor has not managed to scotch your thesis that the laws are just observed physical phenomena so a proposal of extra universal laws is itself an unnecessary entity but then again I would ask you ''why are there rules which are so defined?'' and what about the unreasonable influence of mathematics on physics? a question posed about 60 years ago by Eugene Wigner.

I'm not yet convinced that your portrayal of what Prof D said is correct, so it would be useful if you could cite the relevant posts, and even then I'm not sure what your key point is (and I suspect you don't either). 

[ProfessorDavey]

which you yourself question whether they can arise unconsciously

No I didn't - I never suggested that. I never questioned whether the fundamental laws of physics could arise unconsciously - I questioned your claim for the need of a ruler, and further questioned whether an unconscious ruler could actually be a ruler at all.

.....a set of rules that exist independently of time and space, capable of governing every particle and scintilla of matter in the universe with precision.

Nope I never said that either - I have been clear that the fundamental laws of physics and time/space are not independent - the latter is dependent on the former.

[ippy]

For the second or third time Gordon the Professor himself proposed Laws of nature which had existence which was not dependent on time and space.

Since you have made many positive assertions regarding the nature of the laws though perhaps you might break the habit of a lifetime and start justifying them.

The idea that the laws may have an existence free of time and space is not unknown in science. Tegmark and others would say that the universe is just the physicalisation of mathematics and of course there is simulated universe theory too.

Where I am with you is that the professor has not managed to scotch your thesis that the laws are just observed physical phenomena so a proposal of extra universal laws is itself an unnecessary entity but then again I would ask you ''why are there rules which are so defined?'' and what about the unreasonable influence of mathematics on physics? a question posed about 60 years ago by Eugene Wigner.

If I haven't asked this of you before Vlad I'm sure someone else is more than likely to have asked you, I was just wondering if you know the story about how the Dodo is supposed have become extinct.

Well the above I think is an accurate summing up of the direction all/any of your posts go, what is it you seem to be unable to grasp, no don't answer, had a look at this post and I know it's not worth it, just remember the Dodo Vlad.

Regards to you Vlad, ippy.

[Gordon]

Vlad

Read Prof D's #231 - looks like you misunderstood.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No I didn't - I never suggested that. I never questioned whether the fundamental laws of physics could arise unconsciously - I questioned your claim for the need of a ruler, and further questioned whether an unconscious ruler could actually be a ruler at all.
Nope I never said that either - I have been clear that the fundamental laws of physics and time/space are not independent - the latter is dependent on the former.

See reply#59 You said there Their existence was not dependent on time and space...existence not dependent therefore existence INdependent.

Therefore time and space existence dependent on The Laws but not vica versa.

If you have changed your views on that you are free to do so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad

Read Prof D's #231 - looks like you misunderstood.

Read Prof D's #59

[ProfessorDavey]

See reply#59 You said there Their existence was not dependent on time and space...existence not dependent therefore existence INdependent.

Therefore time and space existence dependent on The Laws but not vica versa.

If you have changed your views on that you are free to do so.

Nope I've not changed my views - hence in my previous reply I said:

'I have been clear that the fundamental laws of physics and time/space are not independent - the latter is dependent on the former' - which is entirely consistent with reply 59 and many subsequent replies in which I have clearly indicate that the fundamental physical laws and time/space are not independent as time/space are dependent on those physical laws.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope I've not changed my views - hence in my previous reply I said:

'I have been clear that the fundamental laws of physics and time/space are not independent - the latter is dependent on the former' - which is entirely consistent with reply 59 and many subsequent replies in which I have clearly indicate that the fundamental physical laws and time/space are not independent as time/space are dependent on those physical laws.

But I use the term existence whereas you do not.
You indicate here that time/space are dependent on physical laws but NOT that physical laws are dependent on time and space. Is that still your position and why can you not bring yourself to make that clear here whereas in reply#59 You make it clear that the laws are not dependent on time and space for their existence.

It looks like you are word gaming here.

[Owlswing]

But I use the term existence whereas you do not.
You indicate here that time/space are dependent on physical laws but NOT that physical laws are dependent on time and space. Is that still your position and why can you not bring yourself to make that clear here whereas in reply#59 You make it clear that the laws are not dependent on time and space for their existence.

It looks like you are word gaming here.

POT _ KETTLE _ BLACK!!!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

POT _ KETTLE _ BLACK!!!

I've noticed that when Davey is put under a bit of pressure, an axe grinder leaps in to get him off the hook.

Owlswing….atheists are not your fellow travellers.

[ProfessorDavey]

You indicate here that time/space are dependent on physical laws but NOT that physical laws are dependent on time and space. Is that still your position and why can you not bring yourself to make that clear here whereas in reply#59 You make it clear that the laws are not dependent on time and space for their existence.

How many times do I have to say the same thing for it to be clear to you Vlad - both on the basic inter-relationship between fundamental physical laws and time/space, and using an analogy of a specific type of physical law (gravity) and a manifestation dependant on that physical principle (orbits). I used the latter as you seem challenged by the notion of time and space being relative and not fixed (which physicists have recognised for decades in one case, centuries in the other). So here goes:

47 - But as you point out those physical laws fundamentally define time and space so the notion of before or after - of beyond or outside - those physical laws is non-sensical.

48 - Origin is a concept predicated on a point in time - when something first emerged to appeared. But the physical laws define time so the very notion of origin is trumped by those physical laws.

51 - But time and space are a manifestation of the physical laws - eternal is a temporal concept (i.e. to do with time) so you are are reading this the wrong way round as the very concept of 'eternal' is defined by those physical laws. And no the physical laws aren't really independent of time and space because the latter are intrinsically defined by those physical laws.

53 - Wrong way around - time and space are dependent on the physical laws.

57 - Given that time/space are dependent on physical laws it is not correct to say that time/space and physical laws are independent - on the contrary they are inextricably linked as time/space are defined by and indeed a manifestation of those physical laws.

59 - Time/space and the physical laws which define them and which time/space are a manifestation of are clearly inextricably linked - i.e. they are not independent. Claiming somehow that physical laws and time/space are independent is as non-sensical as claiming that gravity and the orbiting of the planets in our solar system are somehow independent.

61 - Because time and space are manifestations of those physical laws - time and space only exist because of those physical laws.

73 - I on the other hand clearly stated their dependency - in other words that time/space time are manifestations of those physical laws - time and space only exist because of those physical laws.

75 - You asked about their dependency and I have been very clear - in other words that time/space time are manifestations of those physical laws - time and space only exist because of those physical laws. Dependency doesn't have to be equally two way, but that doesn't mean there is no dependency.

Try this one - using one of those physical laws:

The orbiting of our planets around the sun is dependent on the laws of gravity.

However

The laws of gravity are not dependent on the orbiting of our planets around the sun.

79 - As I've mentioned previously, your question is as non-sensical as asking how gravity can exist if it isn't dependent on the orbits of the planets. The fundamental laws of physics sit above (in other words are more fundamentally) that things which are manifestations of those laws, including time, space, orbits of planets, design of rockets that allow them to escape from earth's gravitational pull etc etc.

81 - Which are themselves dependent on the laws of physics - space/time don't really exist outside the laws of physics in the same way are planetary orbits don't really exist outside of the laws of gravity (one of those fundamental laws of physics).

118 - In fact I think I was very clear that the laws of nature are themselves determined by, and predicated on, those fundamental laws of physics.

167 - Not really - it has been pretty well universally accepted for a long while within the physics community that neither space nor time are fixed and unchanging, but are relative concepts determined by fundamental principles of physics. This was recognised as long ago as Newton for space, and more recently for time.

231 - Nope I never said that either - I have been clear that the fundamental laws of physics and time/space are not independent - the latter is dependent on the former.

236 - 'I have been clear that the fundamental laws of physics and time/space are not independent - the latter is dependent on the former' - which is entirely consistent with reply 59 and many subsequent replies in which I have clearly indicate that the fundamental physical laws and time/space are not independent as time/space are dependent on those physical laws.

[Roses]

Vlad's posts should be ignored they are so nonsensical it is not worth responding to them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

231 - Nope I never said that either - I have been clear that the fundamental laws of physics and time/space are not independent - the latter is dependent on the former.

.

I know time and space are dependent on the laws. You keep saying that. I accept it and have done for the last umpteen posts!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now

Are the laws dependent for their existence on time and space?

If not how do they exist?

[ProfessorDavey]

Are the laws dependent on their existence on time and space?

If not how do they exist?

Is gravity dependent for its existence on the orbits of the planets.

Is flour dependent for its existence on bread.

If not how do they exist.

You are asking a non-sensical question. And one that betrays your lack of understanding of the acceptance in physics that neither time nor space are somehow fixed and unchangeable rather than being relative concepts.

[Owlswing]

I've noticed that when Davey is put under a bit of pressure, an axe grinder leaps in to get him off the hook.

Owlswing….atheists are not your fellow travellers.

I am axe-grinder for no-one on the board - they are all perfectly capable of defending themselves against Christians as brainwashed as those posting to this forum.

Atheists are not my felow travellers, thank the Goddess. They are not as they do not have faith in any deity whereas I do, just not the evil, twisted, vindictive, sadistic, bastard who holds you and otrhers on here in thrall.

I CHOSE my beliefs, I did not have them forced down my throat by priests when I was too young to refuse them and never grew a set big enough to reject them in adulthood, a rejection that I accomplished at age 15!

Bright Blessings, Love and Light and may the Old Ones watch over you and yours always. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is gravity dependent for its existence on the orbits of the planets.

Is flour dependent for its existence on bread.

If not how do they exist.

You are asking a non-sensical question. And one that betrays your lack of understanding of the acceptance in physics that neither time nor space are somehow fixed and unchangeable rather than being relative concepts.

And still not a straight answer. Yes or no would do rather than low mind gaming.

I accept physics, end of.

I understand why you cannot bring yourself to directly admit your suggestion that the laws are not dependent on time and space. You might lose face.

But as I have become fucked well and truly off by your antics I am now more interested in what I have to say.

Yes I agree that time and space are dependent on the laws for their existence.

Yes I agree it doesn't work the other way.

Yes I am highly sympathetic with Tegmarks mathematical universe, that the universe is a manifestation of mathematical laws.

Mathematical laws are abstract and produce nothing physical.

If that was not the case we would be overwhelmed by the continual spontaneous production of the physical.

Only something with a knowledge of mathematics, the ability to compute and manipulate maths and the controlled will to do so can translate maths into the physical.

The universe is both controlled and exists because of this entity, this rule maker and controller(governer) which because it has volition, computation and ability(power) and self control and choice can be said to be personal rather than impersonal and so we arrive at a ruler and maker of the universe whether at a one of point or by continuously translating the mathematical into the physical.

[ProfessorDavey]

And still not a straight answer. Yes or no would do rather than low mind gaming.

I have been clear and consistent throughout.

I accept physics, end of.

Really - you could have fooled me - you don't even seen to have a basic understanding - e.g. asking us how much the laws of physics weigh.

I understand why you cannot bring yourself to directly admit your suggestion that the laws are not dependent on time and space. You might lose face.

I have done on multiple occasions - but what I do not accept is that the fundamental laws of physics and time/space are independent of each other - they aren't.

But as I have become fucked well and truly off by your antics I am now more interested in what I have to say.

Is that supposed to be a comment worth of reading.

Yes I agree that time and space are dependent on the laws for their existence.

Yes I agree it doesn't work the other way.

Good

Yes I am highly sympathetic with Tegmarks mathematical universe, that the universe is a manifestation of mathematical laws.

I doubt you have the faintest idea what that means.

Mathematical laws are abstract and produce nothing physical.

If that was not the case we would be overwhelmed by the continual spontaneous production of the physical.

Only something with a knowledge of mathematics, the ability to compute and manipulate maths and the controlled will to do so can translate maths into the physical.

The universe is both controlled and exists because of this entity, this rule maker and controller(governer) which because it has volition, computation and ability(power) and self control and choice can be said to be personal rather than impersonal and so we arrive at a ruler and maker of the universe whether at a one of point or by continuously translating the mathematical into the physical.

Oh dear - we were doing so well and then Vlad starts to spout bollocks as is so often the case. Occam says no - if you want to propose some kind of maths-knowing govnor - up to you to provide evidence for this nonsense and to justify why this is necessary (as per Occam).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have been clear and consistent throughout.
Really - you could have fooled me - you don't even seen to have a basic understanding - e.g. asking us how much the laws of physics weigh.
I have done on multiple occasions - but what I do not accept is that the fundamental laws of physics and time/space are independent of each other - they aren't.
Is that supposed to be a comment worth of reading.
Good
I doubt you have the faintest idea what that means.
Oh dear - we were doing so well and then Vlad starts to spout bollocks as is so often the case. Occam says no - if you want to propose some kind of maths-knowing govnor - up to you to provide evidence for this nonsense and to justify why this is necessary (as per Occam).

You need to show it is bollocks.

It reveals where you do not understand Occam and necessary entities.

You have abstract mathematical laws producing the physical.

That of course does not happen. If it did we would be overwhelmed by continuous production of the physical. There is however obviously control here. There needs to be a necessary entity beyond the number you propose.

[ProfessorDavey]

You need to show it is bollocks.

No I don't - it is your proposal - the onus is on you to demonstrate your 'guvnor' to be necessary and to exist.

Over to you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No I don't - it is your proposal - the onus is on you to demonstrate your 'guvnor' to be necessary and to exist.

Over to you.

You need to rebut it not just sit on your behind.

I have demonstrated necessity. Abstract mathematical laws never translate into the physical or anything material and you have them doing so. If they did we would be overwhelmed by continually produced matter we know that matter/energy interacts with matter/energy but abstract laws have no weight or physical dimensions whatsoever...….as you emphatically pointed out. And yet here you are saying time and space dependent on them! Whose being stupid now?