Where's Tristo to offer up his "chess with pigeons" analogy?

I like to know how he explains his existence? And is he alluding to quantum physics?


which really IS the "ultimate reality"

(September 29, 2011 at 9:10 am)Rhythm Wrote: Where's Tristo to offer up his "chess with pigeons" analogy?

That's one way of admitting you've lost. Not very gracious though. You're not likely to learn from the experience that way. Pity.

---

(September 29, 2011 at 9:10 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: I like to know how he explains his existence? And is he alluding to quantum physics?


which really IS the "ultimate reality"

The very attempt to prove my existence proves it beyond doubt - since I could not make the attempt, or indeed do anything, if I did not exist first. Is this not so?

It is only so if you can prove it, which you have not, and cannot.

(September 29, 2011 at 9:10 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: I like to know how he explains his existence? And is he alluding to quantum physics?


which really IS the "ultimate reality"

Quantum physics, like all science is an endeavour to understand Ultiamte Reality. Is it not? It is not Ultimate Reality Itself. Is this not so?

(September 29, 2011 at 9:12 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote:

(September 29, 2011 at 9:10 am)Rhythm Wrote: Where's Tristo to offer up his "chess with pigeons" analogy?

That's one way of admitting you've lost. Not very gracious though. You're not likely to learn from the experience that way. Pity.

---

(September 29, 2011 at 9:10 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: I like to know how he explains his existence? And is he alluding to quantum physics?


which really IS the "ultimate reality"

The very attempt to prove my existence proves it beyond doubt - since I could not make the attempt, or indeed do anything, if I did not exist first. Is this not so?

Ahh circular reasoning??

(September 29, 2011 at 9:17 am)Rhythm Wrote: It is only so if you can prove it, which you have not, and cannot.

Your claim that I have not proved it is just a claim - nothing more. Or have you got proof to back you up?

---

(September 29, 2011 at 9:18 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:

(September 29, 2011 at 9:12 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote:

(September 29, 2011 at 9:10 am)Rhythm Wrote: Where's Tristo to offer up his "chess with pigeons" analogy?

That's one way of admitting you've lost. Not very gracious though. You're not likely to learn from the experience that way. Pity.

---

(September 29, 2011 at 9:10 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: I like to know how he explains his existence? And is he alluding to quantum physics?


which really IS the "ultimate reality"

The very attempt to prove my existence proves it beyond doubt - since I could not make the attempt, or indeed do anything, if I did not exist first. Is this not so?

Ahh circular reasoning??

Could you describe where you see a circle? Can someone not ALREADY existing perform ANY act? Or even contemplate the performance of ANY act?

No, quantum physics is not an endeavor to understand god, and no, quantum physics is not god.

Next?

(September 29, 2011 at 1:05 am)mastertrell Wrote: Everything in this universe has a cause, we have never observed in practice or law of math an effect that preceded a cause.

It's called the Big Bang event. We still don't yet know what preceded it. When you try to go back and build a cosmogonical theory or model you hit the brick wall that is the Planck epoch. Everything now becomes speculation. Physics no longer makes sense. The four fundamental forces were all unified at these high temperatures. The early universe, the singularity, may have been timeless and dimensionless for all we know. This is the fatal shortcoming with enforcing arguments from causality is that we just don't know enough about our own universe to make such an assertion in the first place, making statements for or against is making a claim to knowledge. The phenomena in question, the universe/cosmos or reality whatever you want to call it, may have indeed always existed in some form or other.

Quote:I don’t proclaim or deny that god could be an entity or some illogical process that spawned a universe of steady logic laws.

By its own definition it would have to be an entity, not a process, otherwise why call it "God" in the first place?

Quote:And to the second point, we can’t measure that which is outside the realm of logic, as different laws apply,

What do you mean by 'outside' the realm of logic? The imaginary?

Quote:I believe that scientists when they did the first devised the theory of the big bang, Georges Lemaître in particular, defined everything before the big bang as utter void.

Yeah, Georges Lemaître said many things. A "void" or "nothingness" hasn't been demonstrated to be true.

Quote:I run into a lot of people who just insult you because you say you believe in something more complex then the mundane but when you start rattling off magnetic field and how they are necessary to preserve angular momentum, they just usually capitulate and say “well god doesn’t exist so there” and I roll my eyes and move on. I hope to be a new and contributing member here.

Then you should know from experience how this works: if you want to talk about the Universe we're all ears. If you make a bald-faced assertion there's a God-like entity out there, provide evidence and data supported by logic and reasoning to back up the claim or expect ridicule.

(September 29, 2011 at 9:25 am)Rhythm Wrote: No, quantum physics is not an endeavor to understand god, and no, quantum physics is not god.

Next?

I didn't say it was rhythm...but IF you want to go down to the ultimate mote you are treading into the realms of quantum physics as far as I can understand it.

Zaki hasn't got a clue has he??