No, I'm saying that it makes no difference from the stand point of the witness. And you are the witness, not the judge. — Olivier5

A brain in a vat means our senses (the witness) can't be trusted. A brain in a skull = a brain in a vat means our senses can be trusted. You do the math.

The concept of God is a being in which none greater can be conceived — 3017amen

Thank you for including me in the discussion. I was going through your post when I read the above line.

I tried to mathematize Anselm's exact words, "God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived." My initial thoughts as outlined in this thread was that

1. The word "greater" as it appears in Anselms's ontological argument is essentially quantitative, it even has a mathematical symbol, ">", for it.

2. God as "...that than which nothing greater can be conceived" is, to my reckoning, infinity.

3. So, if God exists, an actual infinity should exist but, I argued, since no actual infinities exist, God too can't exist!

As I mentioned in one of my other posts, Anselm's argument is predicated on the existence of actual infinities and utlimately boils down to that precise mathematical issue.

I've now, luckily or not, changed my mind i.e. I find my refutation of the ontological argument to be flawed and therefore concede that Anselm's argument remains whole and unsullied.

Why?

:point: The Symmetry Argument/Method.

The Symmetry Argument/Method basically states that given the obvious truth of dualistic relationships (hot-cold, up-down, big-small, you get the idea) and how such a paradigm has been adopted and empirically verfied (e.g. electron-positron), it's safe, even necessary, to conclude that reality has dualistic symmetry (thing-antithing). Thus, if I know a certain thing exists, it's opposite, the antithing should also exist.

Ergo, I went on, since I TheMadFool am powerless, ignorant, and bad, The Symmetry Argument/Method implies that God (all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good) has to exist.

Back to the main page now. Actual infinities have to exist because actual finites do exist e.g. the numbers 2 and 4. This because of The Symmetry Argument/Method - the finite and infinity constitute a dualistic symmetrical pair.

Actual infinities exist. You might find it interesting to know that the mathematician Georg Cantor of set theory & infinity fame claimed God = Infinity. This seems to fit like a glove with Anselm's "God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived." Ergo, since actual infinities exist, God is infinity, God exists!

If you had only reason and no passion, you would be a computer. If you had only passion and no reason, you would be an animal (sorry animals, I couldn't find a better example).

To be human is to be passionate & rational. I suppose one has to be passionately rational and rationally passionate! Easier said than done though. Oh, how I wish I'd known this 20 years ago! :sad: My passion fills me with regret but my reason tells me not to cry over spilt milk. So, when I'm passionate, I'll cry and when reason takes over, I'll wipe my tears! :cry: :smile: Lather, rinse, repeat!

Humans have by and large viewed and treated the non-human (plants, trees, animals, rivers, seas, the very earth itself) as a resource, erroneously as infinite and to be exploited at will with no to little cost - the slave principle. Civilizations were born and sustained on this maxim.

The slave principle continues to be applied though it's way past its expiry date and hence the clear and present danger of ecological collapse that'll sound the death knell for civilization as we know it. The solution: The partners principle - quid pro quo, nature takes care of you and you take care of nature.

Civilization, for sure, faces other threats such as AI takeover, nuclear war, to name a few but they all appear to be easily solvable if only we adopt the partners principle.

A brain in a vat is a scenario that is, thank you for reminding me, simply an upgrade of Descartes' deus deceptor thought experiment. It's aim is global, total, and untrestrained skpeticism which, in other words, implies nothing, absolutely nothing about our perception is reliable. So, the belief the brain in a vat = the brain in the skull, insightful though it may be, is founded on perceptions (seeing our own brains in skulls) that the brain in a vat invalidates. In legal terms, you're trying to make your case with the aid of an unreliable witness. Case closed! Court adjourned!

Still not convinced. Your body is not, actually, the same thing as the way you perceive your body. We have this Kantian incapacity to reach reality as it is, we only see phenomena. In the world out there as theorized by physics, there are no color, only wavelengths. So what you see is NOT what there is, but a representation of it. — Olivier5

So, you wouldn't be sure about being a brain in a skull just because you look like a brain in a skull! Right? But then you claim brain in a vat = brain in a skull which implies you've seen your actual self (a real brain in a real skull). It doesn't add up.

You can dream of a house; you can imagine a house; you can see a picture of a house; so there are ways in which the image of a house can form within a brain in a skull without an actual, real house being there, outside of same skull.

Vice versa, in a well-conceived and coherent virtual reality, houses would not vanish just because you don't look at them. Otherwise, you could tell that something's not quite right. E.g. when you play a video game, villains don't disappear just because you look elsewhere. They are still able to game you over, even if you pay no attention to them. — Olivier5

Regarding the firsr paragraph of your post.

Yes, the brain can independently generate conscious experience. I mentioned hallucinations.

Regarding the second paragraph of your post.

Yes, a sim would be designed to give you the illusion of coherency. So, the sim would, like you said, give you the impression that a villain persists even when the villain is outside the field of your consciousness.

However, there's something terribly wrong in saying/believing a brain in a skull = brain in a vat.

It's like this. For a brain in a vat, the body, the skull is part of the sim. Thus the body, the skull, the brain you (can) see - possible with available surgical techniques & fiberoptics - is not your actual body, skull or brain!

If the brain in the skull is a brain in the vat, the body, the skull is not a sim. Your body, your skull, the brain inside it is the real McCoy!

You can trust your perceptions to tell you something about this supposedly virtual reality in which you find yourself. Just like if you are a brain in a skull, you can trust your perceptions to tell you something about the supposedly non-virtual reality in which you find yourself. There is no real difference. A skull is essentially the same thing as a vat: a brain container. — Olivier5

There's a difference. In the brain in the vat scenario, conscious experience is no different from an all-modality hallucination. Suppose I'm a brain in a vat and the "evil genius" stimulates my eye neurons and I see an image of a house. Once the stimulation is terminated, there is no house.

If I were a brain in a skull, the image of a house can only form in my eyes if there really is a house. Looking away (terminating the eye stimuli) has no effect on the house - it still is even when my eyes aren't looking at it.

That's so confused I'm :yawn: — 180 Proof

Well, at the very least, you'll get your afternoon nap! :smile: I consider that an accomplishment!

What's the essential difference between a skull and a vat? — Olivier5

The brain = "us"

The skull = The vat

What's the essential difference???

:chin: :chin:

If I'm a brain in a vat, everything I perceive is an illusion generated by simply stimulating the right combination/sequence of neurons. I cannot trust my perceptions.

If I'm a brain inside a skull, my perceptions correlate with an external reality that provides the stimuli to my neurons. In other words, there's an external reality of which I become aware of through my sensory apparatus. I can trust my perceptions, relatively speaking (see vide infra)

Intriguingly, if a person is experiencing a complete all-modality sensory hallucination (sounds, sights, touch, taste, smell) then there's no difference between a brain in a skull and a brain in a vat! In both cases, the brain is being fed an illusion.

What's wrong with
1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
— TLP
as a working definition for existence? This implies that 'whatever exists' is a fact – a contingent entity causally related to other facts; therefore, 'whatever does not exist' is a non-contingent entity not causally related to any facts. So abstract objects e.g. numbers do not exist but rather, as Meinong designated, they only subsist... — 180 Proof

My point is rather simple. To exist = To be perceived = To be physical. Where's the room for nonphysical existence!

discomfort — Book273

lazy. — Book273

Lazy :point: Global Energy Consumption. We're lazy more or less and so we use machines. Machines consume energy and the earth is more active than ever. Human laziness manifests as global activeness.

Discomfort, via our instincts to relieve it, maybe either a contributory factor or an independent alternative pathway to skyrocketing global energy consumption.

Deadly duo! Double trouble! Twin Threats!

The easiest route out of this quagmire of whether the biblia sacra is true/false is to avoid objectivity completely. Objectivity doesn't tolerate inconsistencies - they're considered unmistakable signs of falsehoods and that messes up the idea of the Bible being the truth from the first page to the last page.

Treat the Bible as a subjective account spanning from Moses to Jesus and setting the stage for Mohammad (Islam) and inconsistency becomes moot!

The Bible, to my reckoning, had multiple authors and each one of them had their own take on God and faer prophets, Moses and Jesus. What should we expect to find in such a book? Inconsistencies! That's exactly what we find in the good book!

No, Master Fool, it's your little secret; I have no idea what you think the contradiction is. — Janus

Shhh! :zip: :smile: I hope I didn't offend you!

What's ill-defined?
— TheMadFool

Non-physicalism. — Kenosha Kid

I beg to differ. Existence is poorly defined. Either that or physicalism is under the (false) impression that everything detectable is matter & energy.

Jesus, dude, it's just chat, don't be so offensive ;) — Kenosha Kid

:smile: Georges Lemaître (Expansion Of The Universe) was a priest! Coincidence or...???

Well that's easily dismissed. There are too many theories for the same thing. — Kenosha Kid

The best theory, in terms of explanatory power, is chosen, the rest consigned to the scrap heap. What's explanatory power but a good fit between a hypothesis and experiment. Too many theories, yes but only one, maybe two, are shortlisted based on 1-to-1 correspondence between predictions and confirmation of those predictions.

I am a scientist after all. — Kenosha Kid

Great! Fortune has smile upon me. Something's wrong!

I don't think that can be inferred. — Kenosha Kid

Precisely!

Apropos of nothing, I'm on a train and the most beautiful sunset I've ever seen is going by. Anyhoo, option 3 is there for completion. It is the "I don't want to find out, I just want an answer" option. — Kenosha Kid

Closed-minded scientist! Oxymoron.

It is the self-correcting nature of science — Kenosha Kid

Yes, exactly, that's it! The time has come, scientist, to correct your stand on nonphysicalism.

I believe I may have found a problem with one of your premises though.

"Actual infinities don't exist," doesn't seem to follow from their being controversial. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Good point! Your question takes me back a coupla weeks to this thread :point: Proving A Negative/Burden Of Proof.

Related stuff:

1. Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam

2. Pascal's Wager

Am I justified in inferring the nonexistence of actual infinities based on the fact that no actual infinities have been demonstrated to exist?

My argument would look like this:

1. There are actual infnities OR There are no actual infinities

2. We couldn't prove that There are actual infinities.

Ergo,

3. There are no actual infinities

The argument form employed is the disjunctive syllogism. The crucial question: [We couldn't prove that] There are actual infinities = There are no actual infinities???

When does the absence of proof of a proposition P imply the falsehood of P?

Imagine there's a book that contains every proof that's possible. A proof is what transform uncertainty (p v ~p) for a proposition p into certainty ( p, if not ~p).

Suppose now I go through this book from cover to cover and I find no proof for the proposition, There are actual infinities. In other words the proposition can't be proven which simply means the proposition (There are no actual infinities) can't be true (no proofs exist that demonstrate P).

If the proposition can't be true but it has to be true or false, it follows that the proposition must be assigned the truth value false i.e. There are no actual infinities!

However, the situation I'm in is different. The book of proofs I mentioned earlier isn't something I possess and so a handful of people failing to prove There are no actual infinities falls short of a thorough scan of the book of proofs. Thus the fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam.

However, if someone put a gun to my temple and say, "make the most logical choice given the following...or else...bang! bang!"

1. There are actual infinities or There are no actual infinities

2. Your opponent in the debate hasn't been able to prove There are actual infinities

My reasoning would proceed like this:

My opponent hasn't proved There are actual infinities. Insofar as my opponent and I are concerned, There are actual infinities can't be true [think of it like having gone through a certain number of pages in the book of proofs]. Since There are actual infinities hast to be either true or false, the most logical option is There are actual infinities is false i.e. There are no actual infinities.

:lol:

Depends on the level of analysis. But on the whole, aspects of human nature -- in the case, greed -- that have been magnified by a system that prioritizes private power -- namely, capitalism. — Xtrix

A couple of statements that one might (might've) encounter(ed) in one's life.

1. It was completely out of character for him to have done that.

2. It's not in his nature to talk like that. Something's wrong!

Statement 1 is comforting. We're not slaves to human nature - we can put up a fight against it and, on occasion, hopefully these being critical to our welfare, win!

Statement 2 also suggests if not demonstrates that we have, loosely speaking, free will - a silver lining on the edges of an ominous dark cloud (human nature). What dampens my spirits is that when people behave atypicially, the immediate reaction is, "something's wrong!" As if we expect ourselves to be in line with our nature, deviations are perceived as wrong instead of right. It's almost like, may be is, taking offense, being deeply distressed, by free will. Odd that! On the one hand, we've built our civilization around free will and when someone does display it, we're taken aback, even suspicious (something's wrong!). A paradox in its own right!

How does climate change fit into all that I've said? All I can say is, it's totally in charater, typical! Of humans. If we're to do anything about it, we need to offend, surprise, shock even, as many people as possible, make them utter, "it's not in faer nature to think/say/do like that!" but the follow up statement should be not, "something's wrong!" but "something's right!" As you might've noticed, "something's right!" is harder to say than "something's wrong!" - it just doesn't sound right, it feels like a mistake. Thereby hangs a tale...

It looks like, taking climate change as the holotype of all of our problems, the world's problems by extension, it's ultimately about free will! Choices! We must convert must (necessity/no free will) into may (possibility/yes free will).

Birth leads to death, Fool. :roll: But okay, agree to disagree. Pax. — 180 Proof

Rule no. 1: The boss is always right!

You're the boss!

Persist in error as you which. The intuition of the ancient Greeks who paired Thanatos & Hypnos as siblings speaks to me and informs my translating them as 'god-prophet' relationship in parody of the Islamic Shahada. "Pain", my friend, corresponds life and painlessness – approximated in sleep, or coma – corresponds to death. This is the human condition, our facticity; deny it as much as you like. Remember, "pain" comes with happenstance but, ceteris paribus, sleep like death is inherently – physiologically – inevitable. :death: — 180 Proof

:heart: Let's agree to disagree. I'd just like to share this with you without the intention to argue. Illness leads/might lead to death. The most common complaint people have when they fall is pain. Pain :point: Sick :point: Death

You might do well to consider the quality of your companions. — Banno

Why? Because...

Religious moderation gives cover to religious fundamentalism — Sam Harris

Doesn't putting the pressure on religious moderates like 3017amen and others probably amount to terrorism?

Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentional violence to achieve political aims. It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants (mostly civilians and neutral military personnel) — Wikipedia

That's what I call the Green Goblin maneuver - hurting Mary Jane (Peter Parker's "better" half) to hurt Peter Parker (Spiderman). A :up: for strategy but A :down: for ethics.

LOL, tell Banno, there is a there there :razz: — 3017amen

:up: G'day!

Okay, I think I got it — 3017amen

There's nothing here. — Banno

:smile:

So, if we’re looking at matter/anti-matter for instance as a yin-yang structure (with both aspects perceivable), then we’re assuming a reference point outside of it. — Possibility

You've not argued your position! Argumentum ad nauseum! :vomit:

Is there ANYONE out there who still doesn't consider this the issue of our times? — Xtrix

Climate change is not a disease, it's a symptom. I know quite a few doctors and they all say, while relieving the symptom has its merits, treating the disease is the primary goal!

What, in your opinion, is the disease?

I don't think there is any good reason to fiddle around with "heap" to make it more precise, but if there were, this would be a good way of going about it. — T Clark

Another issue with the heap paradox, taking the example fat, seems to hinge on the distinction subjectivity-objectivity.

At one end (thin) - grey zone (thin/fat aka borderline cases) - at the other end (fat)

Thin and fat, at opposite ends pose no issue but the grey zone is a logical nightmare. Imagine I see Mr. P and to me he's fat. You see Mr. P and he's thin to you. Now, vagueness treats both yours and my judgment as legit. That means P is both fat AND P is thin. This is a contradiction which only rears its ugly head when we consider vagueness as factual, a part of reality as it were.

One way out of it is to ask the obvious question, "is P really thin/fat?" The question immediately makes vagueness subjective - disagreement (contradiction) tolerated - and thin/fat objective concepts - disagreement (contradiction) prohibited.

As you can see, vagueness is now subjective. There's another kind of phenomenon that's subjective, hallucinations. Vagueness is an illusion.

TMF!

Are you saying that self-awareness, in itself, represents a non-physical quality (qualia) that is essential for physical consciousness as we understand it? — 3017amen

All I'm willing to say is, it's rather odd that the mind has set up a criteria for telling the difference between physical and nonphysical, has applied it with great success I might add but...the catch is...it doesn't seem to be able to determine whether it itself is physical or not!

That's like a person who can tell the difference between a man and a woman but failing to identify his own sex! Perhaps, just perhaps, as you suggested, this person is both!

Yes there are very good arguments, especially from physicalist quarters but that there are some who think differently (nonphysicalists) and those who can't make up their minds, is a clear sign that the physicality of the mind isn't an open and shut case.

And what exactly does this mean? Any and every line segment is an actual infinity of points - each point having an address that can be written down. — tim wood

I thought of it that way too but if the set of points in a line segment is a completed infinity, it should be possible to make a list of them and...wait for it...the list should have a last entry. I'm afraid that's not possible. Actual infinities? :chin:

There is a flaw in your assumption — Book273

1. If you're not afraid to die then it doesn't matter whether you live or die

If 1 is flawed then, the following seems more suited to your tastes.

2. If you're not afraid to die then it doesn't matter if you die.

3. If you want to live then it matters if you die.

:chin:

Not much point saying that unless you (can) point to the contradiction. — Janus

It's our little secret! G'day

Not in the traditional sense of eager. More like anticipating with curiosity. I have a number of good reasons to continue living so while those remain, why rush the ending? I am rather happy with life and see a great deal of wonder in it. Unlike most suicides that end their life as a means to end physical or emotional pain, I really have none of that to speak of. Suicides are often afraid of death, but are more afraid of continuing on as they are currently living.

Now remove my current reasons to continue living and increase my boredom....suicide becomes a more likely option as things that keep me inclined to remain here decrease. — Book273

So, you want to live!

1. If you're not afraid to die then it doesn't matter whether you live or die.

2. If you want to live it matters whether you live or die

:chin:

But of course you are able to use the word "heap" effectively, not despite it's imprecision, but in virtue of its imprecision.

Compare "throw yours on the heap" to "add your twenty-seven to that four thousand, two hundred and seventy three".

An excess of precision impairs our actions.

And precision is available, as required. — Banno

:up:

But...

Is it possible that vagueness is an illusion?

Take the heap/sorites paradox. The heap-ness has nothing at all to do with the sand grains individually but what it actually is is the shape (roughly conical). So when you remove grains of sand but the shape doesn't change, you can't claim the word "heap" is vague. The shape of a sand heap is at best, an imperfect function of the number of sand grains or at worst, has no correlation with the number of sand grains. Even when sand grains are removed the shape is maintained, the word "heap" applies to the shape and not the number of sand grains.

A "prophet" heralds the coming of his god(dess) and does not "keep her at bay". Sleep, not "pain", is a glimpse, a reheasal or reminder, a nightly practiced welcoming of Death; "pain" merely signals proximity to one's demise which almost always one involuntarily retreats from – in other words, "pain" is the demon tormenting one to temptations of painlessness like a prophet of the devil Life (à la gnosis). — 180 Proof

I wasn't clear enough. My bad! Pain has dual functionality - it signals injury and death (heralds death) and for that reason serves as an early warning system that can help us take preventive measures (death defense).

Ergo, I stand committed to the fact that Algea (pain) is Thanatos' prophet and not Hypnos (sleep)!

Everyone will eventually die.
— darthbarracuda

Challenge accepted. — Pfhorrest

:rofl:

No, I find there is simply a preponderance of evidence to support option two. — Book273

:ok: Are you eager to die?

Also, how am I to tell the difference between someone who suicides (no fear of death) and you (no fear of death)? Why aren't you dead?

This is a mere assumption not any kind of absolute logical entailment or truth. Physical laws (if they exist), by definition, govern the physical, and have no necessary relation to the non-physical (however that is defined). A simple category error is giving rise to the illusion that these "principles" you are asserting are sound. — Janus

You're contradicting yourself! No harm though! I do that often and look at me - I'm still alive! Survival of the fittest! or as I prefer it, survival of the luckiest! :rofl: Nevertheless, things could've been better. :rofl:

Something being ill-defined is a good reason to refute it. — Kenosha Kid

What's ill-defined?

As I've already said, non-physical doesn't make sense as a concept: either it interacts with the physical, in which case it's physical, or it does not, in which case it cannot make itself known — Kenosha Kid

You should read the conversation I had with Khaled. We discussed this thoroughly. I have no desire to repeat myself here. Nevertheless, the problem is not with how nonphysicalism/physicalism are defined but with how existence is defined.

And you wrote it! :rofl: — Kenosha Kid

Yes, I know :smile: I felt like I had to confess. Are you a priest? :rofl:

Let's be explicit. Denotatively a physical law is epistemological: it is a statement about our knowledge of the universe. Colloquially, it also refers to the referent of the former: the ontological truth about the universe. So the law of conservation of energy is precisely a statement about human knowledge, and imprecisely a property of the actual universe that we think is true. — Kenosha Kid

There's got to be a correspondence (a 1-to-1 correspondence) in terms of logical implications between epistemology and ontology. You speak as is they're completely independent of each other. They're different I agree but not independent in the sense and to the degree necessary for the above paragraph to be relevant to the discussion.

When we say that a physical law is violated, we mean one of three things:
1. our well-tested knowledge about physical reality (physical law) is nonetheless wrong or at least inaccurate;
2. our physical laws are fine (or good enough) but our description of nature or an observation is incomplete;
3. something non-physical is happening. — Kenosha Kid

At least you had to intellectual honesty to consider option 3. something nonphysical is happening. :up:

Your reference to conservation laws maybe changing with time is an example of the first, as is the orbit of Mercury which led to Newtonian gravity to be usurped by Einstein's general relativity. But be clear, this is epistemological. We're not saying that the actual ontological rules governing the universe have been violated, rather that our knowledge has been upended. — Kenosha Kid

Agreed, conservation "laws" maybe changing.

That's exactly the issue here. If "laws" can change science is reduced to nonsense! Look below,

1. If x is physical then x violates physical laws (the usual deal) or x doesn't violate physical laws (change in the laws)

In other words, the hypothesis x is physical can't be falsified because it doesn't matter if physical laws are violated or not!

Falsifiability is what science is all about. Science makes big claims for itself and dismisses many alternatives to science out of hand by labelling them pseudoscience. Google why? It itself, however, fails to meet the stringent criteria it sets for others, and shockingly, precisely on what physical means vis-à-vis the physical laws. That's like a mechanical engineer not being able to define "machine".

Again, your distinction ontological-epistemological is irrelevant. Change in one must be reflected in the other - that's how it works, no? You seem to be under the impression that ontology can contradict epistemology and it wouldn't matter but, as you know, such events signal scientists to, well, scurry back to the drawing board as it were. The idea is to map the territory (construct a theory - epistemology - that can be tested empirically- ontology) The two interact but, mind you ontology (reality) is untouchable so to speak, modify the epistemology (the theory). Everyone knows that!

My official stand, should anyone be interested, is option two. Another transition. — Book273

Then, you do fear death! By the way, this really isn't what I want to discuss. Thanks though!

Logic is the relationship between ideas, pure and simple. Of course all the physicalists will then say that such ideas are 'in' or 'correlated with' neural events, but you have to be able to use logic to understand what a 'neural event' is. ;-) — Wayfarer

:up:

Mr. Black was a very important man. In fact that was a meiosis - Mr. Black was not just a very important man, he was the most important man, not just on earth, not just in the solar system, not just in the galaxy or the local cluster or the universe but in the entire infinity of the multiverse.

He was the key to unlocking the secrets of the multiverse. Mr. Black was the cosmic library as it were - all knowledge, past, present, and future were locked up inside his, oddly, tiny head. We had to get our hands on what he knew. It was the key to the survival of all life across the multiverse - we would find cures for diseases, ways of stopping wars, methods to grass tasty, you know the whole enchilada.

Mr. Black was a shrewd fellow. He realized long long ago that what he knew would change the entire multiverse - transform it into an eternal paradise inhabited by beings perfect in every sense of the word. Thus, realizing his own cosmic significance and how fragile a physical body is, he wisely downloaded his knowledge onto a flash drive and decided to hand it over to the Guardians Of The Multiverse.

The Guardians kept their word and arrived at the designated time the next day. No words were exchanged, Mr. Black simply stuck his hand out through the half-open door, the flash drive between his index finger and thumb. The Guardians took the flash drive, Mr. Black heard a collective sigh of relief, and off the Guardians went, disappearing into the fog.

Back at the HQ, the Guardians immediately went to work. Before they did anything, they had to make sure, the data was not corrupted. "You can't be too careful you know", said one. "Failure isn't an option" said another. They very carefully inserted the flash drive into a flash drive slot and after the customary virus scan, they clicked on the right icon. There was a single document - they clicked on it. The initial excitement and joy they felt for being the first people other than Mr. Black to set eyes on the secrets of the multiverse instantly gave way to dismay, confusion, and disappointment. What was on the screen was complete gibberish - they'd never seen any of the symbols let alone make out a word or sentence.

Commotion ensued and while everyone was shouting at each other - "did you drop the flash drive?" "is there a virus?" and so on - one of the Guardians offered a more plausible alternative, "maybe it's code! Mr. Black must've forgotten about it. we need to get the key." Suddenly, the noise was replaced by pin drop silence.

The next day. The Guardians were slowly but steadily walking along the winding path along the mountain's sides, the path that would take them...to...Mr. Black!

So it all hinges on the definition of 'matter and energy'. And no one knows what matter is, exactly... so we haven't made much progress.

Like, is Beethoven's 5th symphony composed of matter and energy? And how many grams does the number 5 weight? — Olivier5

Matter is anything that has mass and volume.

No, I was treating the point: — Kenosha Kid

What does that mean?

This is refuting, not defining. — Kenosha Kid

You need to get your basics right. How could one refute sans a definition?

This doesn't make sense. An uncaused expansion of the universe would violate physical law. Dark energy is a physical hypothesis in which no physical law would be violated. — Kenosha Kid

Your befuddlement is understandable. I too am equally if not more confused.

We have to go back to the beginning whenever that was. Physical laws are being violated (the expansion of the universe can't be explained with available data on matter & energy and the physical laws duely applied).

Now, according to the physicalist,

1. If x is nonphysical then x violates physical laws

The expansion of the universe has already and is, as we speak, violating physical laws. The physicalist should, because 1 is his position on nonphysicalism, take this as confirmation of the nonphysical (abductive reasoning/affirming the consequent "fallacy"?! the scientific method).

However, they say, towing the line of physicists, "no!" This is what you're talking about viz. that dark energy, the physicalist "explanation" for the expanding universe, is physical. You seem to be under the impression that if dark energy is physical, physical laws aren't violated! I urge you to read the article again - physical laws are violated by the expansion of the universe.

See: Violation of energy conservation in the early universe may explain dark energy

Ergo, following your lead,

2. If x is physical then either x violates physical laws or x doesn't violate physical laws

The rest is as I wrote in my last post (follows from 2).

Yes, it's better in my eyes, but I'll leave it to you as it whether you think it's better. No contradiction, just not being arrogant about it. — Kenosha Kid

Ok! Great! Anyway, it doesn't matter to my argument. I don't know why I brought it up! Was it you?

If you're not interested in why physicists do what they do, don't ask about them, or make ill-founded claims about them. Perfectly simple! — Kenosha Kid

You misunderstand me. The achievements of physicists are irrelevant to my argument. That's all. Do you mean to argue that just because physicists have made so many contributions that they're right about their take on nonphysicalism? Shouldn't it be the exact opposite? :chin:

Also, you didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it here for your attention. What is a physicist's stand on the nonphysical?

The problem is simple:

Dark energy you say is physical. Ergo the physical violates physical laws ( :chin: ). It's the "scientific" way.

The physical also obey i.e. don't violate physical laws. The usual.

Ergo,

1. If x is physical then either x violates physical laws or x doesn't violate physical laws.

Suppose now that my scientific hypothesis is the mind is physical i.e. x = mind. From 1, my predictions would be either the mind will violate physical laws or the mind won't violate physical laws. In other words, my hypothesis is unfalsifiable. Whether the prediction (violation of physical laws) is true/false, my hypothesis that mind is physical isn't affected in any way at all. This is bad science and you know it. Undermines the whole edifice of physicalism I must say!