JAK.
Quote:
|
It is your hypothesis that you are paradoxically both finite and infinite. Thus, the burden of proof should fall on your shoulders.
|
---True. My burden of proof falls to me, to prove that reality is a paradox.
---You solutions are interesting. Multiple dimensions and the types of limits are also something that, I have ‘been there and done that’ in discussions, if not also, already, thought out and included in my hypothesis and they are indeed, possibilities for one version of me being infinite and finite, but that is not idea that the paragraph contains, if you had read and thought about it;
all and everything in it of reality is infinite and finite.
Quote:
|
Dream States - if reality is only an illusion of the mind, then true reality may go well beyond our understandings or even our ability to understand.
|
---True. There will always be a tiny bit of unknown, to be believed to objectively exist and from that, we will always have doubts of our understanding.
---At least, until the time comes when we believe that we do have a full understanding of it and become that objective reality, since there will be nothing to stop us from doing that.
Quote:
I need your definition of "proof". If "perception" is required for any "proof", then there is no proof for the geologic history of the Earth - especially the precambrian time-frame as well as back to the big-bang. Quote:
It is external information, not an internal belief, that can be seen/smelt/felt/tasted/heard/recorded/logically or mathematically or chemically put together by/affecting [i]any[i] individual, regardless of their intellectual level, be they animal, human animal, vegetable or mineral (computer, say). This information is to be factual, within existence and considered to be a real and repeatable concept, as relating to the past and in connection with other aspects of reality. Quote: |
Postulating internal/external assumes a definition, thus, creating limits.
| | |
---JAK, you simply can’t get past that mindtrap can you? You asked for my definition of what I consider to be ‘proof’ and all you do is take it apart and analyze it to fit your 3 laws. Sheesh.
Quote:
|
Please provide some contradictive facts.
|
---You are frozen in time; absolutely unmoving and going nowhen. You are moving in time; coming from the past, existing in the now and moving into an unknown future.
Quote:
|
Natural selection creates instinct. Intelligence is not required unless you stipulate that orderly laws of nature are "intelligence"
|
---According to Socratic thinking a computer is an intelligence.
---Are the laws themselves intelligence? Hmm, did you really ask that question?
Quote:
|
Do either of you have a compelling argument for how complexity can be stored in a simplistic mechanism?
|
---For me, the hypotheses of the material that, makes up an atom; massenergy or even the quantum strata.
---How simplistic is an atom when its make-up involves an electron, which can be a wave and a particle. Something that can, hypothetically, be non-local: everywhere and no ‘where’. And let us not forget or the positron or the antiparticle of the electron.
---The Uncertainty Principal, shows that for it to be ‘seen/perceived’ by someone or something, an electron would have to be hit with a photon to knock it of course and affect its outcome and yet, where in existence is there not a photon that can be hitting it and causing it to be ‘seen/perceived’ by someone or something
---An electron can be tracked and has a history, within reality, just as it is no ‘where’ and no ‘when’. As a part of an electron’s existence, it is connected to other things through advanced and retarded waves. A Google list of links:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US
fficial&hs=P15&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=resul t&cd=1&q=advanced,+retarded+waves,+electron&spell= 1 One specific link with cached:
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:hzwycQNl-nUJ:www.npl.washington.edu/ti/TI_30.html+electron,+advanced,+retarded+waves&hl=e n&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ca&client=firefox-a
---Let me add in another thought for the simplistic electron/positron/make-up of the atom; quantum entanglement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
---Even if the atom is separate from other atoms, that were a part of the mind that contained the original idea, are no longer in that one mind are you sure that those atoms are still not in contact, in a transformed state that can still retain the original idea, as a part of that atom’s existence.
---Your answer to the opening question, in post # 60, will tell me, for sure, whether you understand your own 3 laws hypothesis, as well as you think you do, but I already believe I know the answer.