Thread: What are your favourite simple things that science just cannot explain?

Socrates is the only one worth learning about. He was an enlightened man, the rest were just philosophers.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Oh you disappointed him! He is not even talking about grammar, although he thinks he is. He is talking about some philosophical position based on language, where the way we think is dependent on our language. This is true to an extant, but not ultimately true. Not all of our thoughts are based on words or concepts. And the deeper our thoughts are, the more language has to be flexible to convey the truth of what we are saying. we may even have to make up new words or expand the definition of existing words as our ideas evolve. That is not the same thing as grammar. Your grammar is fine, we understand you. But he is disappointed because the way you talk proves that you haven't studied Plato and Aristotle, which he values so immensely. He actually hoped that you also valued Plato and Aristotle as much as he does. Perhaps. He doesn't really make any sense, which goes far in saying how his grammar is. But even if he DOES try to explain what he is talking about, you wouldn't know it, because you would need him to explain his explanation because unfortunately it will be just as confusing and incoherent as his first statement.

Edit: you obviously didn't keep your word of Studying Plato, Socrates, and Euclid. You didn't keep your word by and you proved it by not talking like Phil.

The only way I could express how much I like this post above and beyond clicking the like button was to quote it.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Your opinion has already been refuted by a much greater mind than mine;

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind,
and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by
the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality
we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the
mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the
moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of
opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some
picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all
the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his
picture is the only one which could explain his observations.
He will never be able to compare his picture with the real
mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of
the meaning of such a comparison."
--ALBERT EINSTEIN, 1938

May as well say that digestion is a free creation of the stomach, and has nothing to do with food. I don't see how anyone can read that and not laugh their ass off. Only an idiot would look at a statement that amounts to knowledge is ignorance and be impressed. When someone cannot tell the difference between science and mysticism, then why do they bother? Ever hear the expression "baffle them with bullshit?" A moron such as I could refute Einstien because of the simple principles of language. See my Language and Experience.

How life began? Plenty of theories/hypotheses, but...

Originally Posted by Oneiro

How life began? Plenty of theories/hypotheses, but...

I would imagine that it is possible that, that question is just like asking how did space begin--a violation of logic itself. If both are wrong, the myths that so called scientist create, and the myths of the religious, who in their right mind would claim that the one is superior to the other? Who in their right mind would say that one dead man was better off than another dead man because one body was older than the other?

However, it is not the same as How our life began. There is a difference between Space and a space, between Life and a life, between Love and a love--even difference between God and a god. Although every member of a class has the same definition as every other member of the same class, the member of a class is not the definition of which it is a member. A concept that Bertrand Russell was not even capable of formulating, while others don't even try. i.e. class mechanics, neither a boundary of a thing is a thing, nor is the material difference of a thing a thing, Plato wrote Parmenides so that the reader may some day realize the principles of what can and cannot be predicated of what. If one knew the elements of grammar, they can easily construct a simple table of permissible predications determined solely on the notion that A = A.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I would imagine that it is possible that, that question is just like asking how did space begin--a violation of logic itself. If both are wrong, the myths that so called scientist create, and the myths of the religious, who in their right mind would claim that the one is superior to the other? Who in their right mind would say that one dead man was better off than another dead man because one body was older than the other?

However, it is not the same as How our life began. There is a difference between Space and a space, between Life and a life, between Love and a love--even difference between God and a god. Although every member of a class has the same definition as every other member of the same class, the member of a class is not the definition of which it is a member. A concept that Bertrand Russell was not even capable of formulating, while others don't even try. i.e. class mechanics, neither a boundary of a thing is a thing, nor is the material difference of a thing a thing, Plato wrote Parmenides so that the reader may some day realize the principles of what can and cannot be predicated of what. If one knew the elements of grammar, they can easily construct a simple table of permissible predications determined solely on the notion that A = A.

So many words, yet so little content.

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

So many words, yet so little content.

You're not the first cow to watch a train.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

You're not the first cow to watch a train.

If by "a train" you mean "a train of self-important and incoherent thought", I completely agree.

And it can "MOO" too, how impressive.

Let me ask you a question, was the crying of babies that stopped the development of human understanding, or did it in fact promote it?

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Edit: you obviously didn't keep your word of Studying Plato, Socrates, and Euclid. You didn't keep your word by and you proved it by not talking like Phil.

You never change, spouting non-sense about things or people you don't know a wit about as if you were the first to claim that ignorance is wisdom.

Originally Posted by LxANN

Explain to me exactly what you're attempting to do here, as it says in your signature. I want to understand why you must share with everyone the principles of grammar, I would personally like to comprehend if you can word it well enough for my understanding, and I shall learn to feed off of it. I do, in a way, have abundant respect for your effort in your dedicated beliefs of your "non-invasive psycho-therapy".

You are not the first beautiful young lady to put on a show in the pretence of innocence. If you really want to walk down that road, no one except you can change that.

Has anyone mentioned spitty-slurpy yet?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Your opinion has already been refuted by a much greater mind than mine;

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind,
and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by
the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality
we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the
mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the
moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of
opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some
picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all
the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his
picture is the only one which could explain his observations.
He will never be able to compare his picture with the real
mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of
the meaning of such a comparison."
--ALBERT EINSTEIN, 1938

Ugh. I just made a long reply that got deleted... Oh, well, I'll summarize.

Okay. I'm not saying that our theories or understandings of the world right now are 100%, without a doubt, correct. What I am saying is that, if the human mind had no limitations, science could fully reveal the workings of the world. The reason why this is possible is because the world, the universe, everything, works in a certain way, by certain laws, as a reaction to other things, etc. There may be, at the center of it all, possibly one initial thing which is beyond science and definitely beyond human understanding, but nothing else. Yes, science is a tool used by humans to decipher the inner workings of the universe, but that does not mean that it is impossible to know if it is correct or not. Would you say that you do not believe in gravity? What about the earth being round? Are those things you disagree with? Both were discovered by science. It may be impossible to ever know the real scale of the mechanism merely by observation, but the world isn't really like a closed watch. We have far more than just visual evidence to back up our ideas. However, you can be sure that there is in fact a mechanism inside the watch, even if you cannot be sure exactly how it works.

I use to say it with less words, the existence of bird droppings implies the existence of birds. Or from the foundation, effect implies cause, an application of A = A.

However, langauge does not contradict langauge, and if anyone, no matter what they wanted to believe, had an interest in understanding would first made sure they understood it before they put faith in what they did with it.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

May as well say that digestion is a free creation of the stomach, and has nothing to do with food. I don't see how anyone can read that and not laugh their ass off. Only an idiot would look at a statement that amounts to knowledge is ignorance and be impressed. When someone cannot tell the difference between science and mysticism, then why do they bother? Ever hear the expression "baffle them with bullshit?" A moron such as I could refute Einstien because of the simple principles of language. See my Language and Experience.

LOL!
I hate it when people try to baffle me with bullshit... all the time... and then accuse other people of doing the same.
What's that you say? Xaqaria is an idiot? I don't think I agree, and I think you just want to call him names.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

You never change, spouting non-sense about things or people you don't know a wit about as if you were the first to claim that ignorance is wisdom.

I know. I hate it when people try to baffle me with bullshit... all the time... and then accuse other people of doing the same.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

You are not the first beautiful young lady to put on a show in the pretence of innocence. If you really want to walk down that road, no one except you can change that.

I know. I hate it when people try to baffle me with bullshit... all the time... and then accuse other people of doing the same...
...repeatedly.

Originally Posted by sloth

I know. I hate it when people try to baffle me with bullshit... all the time... and then accuse other people of doing the same.

The only difference between you and Einstein, is he was clever at it.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

The only difference between you and Einstein, is he was clever at it.

You forgot to designate what "it" is.

Originally Posted by sloth

You forgot to designate what "it" is.

And he could sometimes follow a train of discourse.

LOL! I didn't actually expect you to make sense this time either.
I hate when people try to baffle me with bullshit.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

You are not the first beautiful young lady to put on a show in the pretence of innocence. If you really want to walk down that road, no one except you can change that.

I'm not intending to walk down the wrong road, I intend to walk down the road which is correct. Maybe I need selected support, is all?

Originally Posted by LxANN

I'm not intending to walk down the wrong road, I intend to walk down the road which is correct. Maybe I need selected support, is all?

I may be your most fav boyfriend, but I am not a bra. I can speak in jest as well as anyone.

Bleh. In jest. It was funny until you edited it.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Whats so special about Plato and Aristotle anyway? Don't we have our own minds? Haven't we learned a whole lot more to think about now? lol

"The term metaphysics originally referred to the writings of Aristotle that came after his writings on physics. Traditionally, metaphysics refers to the branch of philosophy that attempts to understand the fundamental nature of all reality, whether visible or invisible. It seeks a description so basic, so essentially simple, so all-inclusive that it applies to everything, whether divine or human or anything else. It attempts to tell what anything must be like in order to be at all."

"Plato's ethics is inseparable from his epistemology. Epistemology is, broadly speaking, the study of what knowledge is and how one comes to have knowledge. Among the many topics included in epistemology are logic, belief, perception, language, science, and knowledge."

That's, in fact what's so special about them.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I may be your most fav boyfriend, but I am not a bra. I can speak in jest as well as anyone.

Why speak in jest like everyone?