Jamest, I offer you serious discussion

[pErvinalia]

There was also an interesting theory proposed by some geezer a while ago which, if my memory serves me correct, hinged upon the concepts of entropy. That is, it's thermodynamically more efficient for matter to assemble into self-replicating units than otherwise. That doesn't explain how the first spark(s) occurred, but it does provide a positive potential for it to happen.

[jamest]

How do you prove, in a 'scientific sense', that matter exists?

Because in a scientific sense, matter is a scientific term.

Irrelevant to the question.

It's easy to prove it exists in a scientific sense by simply observing it.

You've just made a philosophical claim... an absurd metaphysical claim. Namely, that observed/experienced A = A. In other words, you've just made a monkey of yourself.

Bollocks. The proof in a scientific context involves observation. That's why the fact that I was referring to a scientific sense IS relevant to the question.

I asked you about the actual existence of matter. To say that the observation/experience of matter suffices as its proof is to imply that observed/experienced A = A. For instance, that the observation/experience of a tree proves that trees actually exist. Well squire, it doesn't, since the observation/experience of something is a phenomenon happening to/within the observer. The actual existence of A relates to its identity independent of (external to) the observer. And yes, you have engaged in absurd metaphysics.

Err, okay. Tell me about the origins of the [complex] single cell from the primordial soup.

You want to know about abiogenisis? That's a question that can't be answered yet.

Therefore God.

We can do logic if you want. You clearly need some work on that subject...

I was just trying to save time.

I'm thinking more of a scientific problem that you don't quite grasp or think has a flaw in it. Or whatever it is you reckon passes for serious discussion.

How does the ovum become [say] a human being?

What, am I wikipedia?

More like Willy Wonka.

This is simple stuff. If you think there is a problem hidden in there, out with it, man!

Is the process possible without an underlying code? Because hackenslash denies that there are any codes involved in the reproduction process. According to him, the whole code shebang is an essentially unscientific narrative.

[piscator]

I asked you about the actual existence of matter. To say that the observation/experience of matter suffices as its proof is to imply that observed/experienced A = A. For instance, that the observation/experience of a tree proves that trees actually exist. Well squire, it doesn't, since the observation/experience of something is a phenomenon happening to/within the observer. The actual existence of A relates to its identity independent of (external to) the observer. And yes, you have engaged in absurd metaphysics.

I bet you'd still get out of the way of a falling piano if you saw it coming.

[jamest]

I asked you about the actual existence of matter. To say that the observation/experience of matter suffices as its proof is to imply that observed/experienced A = A. For instance, that the observation/experience of a tree proves that trees actually exist. Well squire, it doesn't, since the observation/experience of something is a phenomenon happening to/within the observer. The actual existence of A relates to its identity independent of (external to) the observer. And yes, you have engaged in absurd metaphysics.

I bet you'd still get out of the way of a falling piano if you saw it coming.

Of course, since it would impact upon my observed/experienced body.

[piscator]

And you would have even more trouble begging the question...

[piscator]

...Point being, Actual Existence™ doesn't matter one wit more to you than to me. If you think so, then by all means confine your reply to that realm, with no coarse observational/experiential artifacts here to cheapen it.

[jamest]

...Point being, Actual Existence™ doesn't matter one wit more to you than to me. If you think so, then by all means confine your reply to that realm, with no coarse observational/experiential artifacts here to cheapen it.

Of course it matters, but for 'spiritual' reasons/consequences you probably haven't given much thought to. I mean, how the fuck could it be of no consequence to you to discover that there is no world beyond the experience of it? Are you serious?

[piscator]

...Point being, Actual Existence™ doesn't matter one wit more to you than to me. If you think so, then by all means confine your reply to that realm, with no coarse observational/experiential artifacts here to cheapen it.

Of course it matters, but for 'spiritual' reasons/consequences you probably haven't given much thought to. I mean, how the fuck could it be of no consequence to you to discover that there is no world beyond the experience of it? Are you serious?

The Actual Existence™ of matter, as you've supposed it, don't mean doodlysquat if it has no effect. Feel free to "need" it for your own "spirituality", and talk about it at great length and energy, if begging questions is how you pursue happiness.

[jamest]

...Point being, Actual Existence™ doesn't matter one wit more to you than to me. If you think so, then by all means confine your reply to that realm, with no coarse observational/experiential artifacts here to cheapen it.

Of course it matters, but for 'spiritual' reasons/consequences you probably haven't given much thought to. I mean, how the fuck could it be of no consequence to you to discover that there is no world beyond the experience of it? Are you serious?

The Actual Existence™ of matter, as you've supposed it, don't mean doodlysquat if it has no effect. Feel free to "need" it for your own "spirituality", and talk about it at great length and energy, if begging questions is how you pursue happiness.

If there's no physical world, then this has deeply-profound consequences for your identity and nature. Which, in turn, should have deeply-profound consequences for your attitude and decisions wrt your experiences. The 'effect' you mention is upon yourself, as should be obvious to anyone upon discovering that they are the universe.

Make no mistake, the non-existence of the material domain would have serious repercussions for 'you'. And you're intelligent enough to realise that, so stop playing dumb.

[piscator]

You can't transcend the fishbowl. Your rules and discoveries of other worlds may be full of fishbowl artifacts, but that's just the way it is.

[jamest]

You can't transcend the fishbowl.

Nonsense. If such were thus I would never have realised the obvious fact that observed A = A, was false. Not to mention another 101 other truths. The human mind often transcends its experiences. If such were not true then philosophy, maths and art, would not be possible. Indeed, erroneous scientific hypotheses would not be possible.

Your rules and discoveries of other worlds may be full of fishbowl artifacts, but that's just the way it is.

Put your simple mantras about fish away. If you want to talk metaphysics, then get your fucking balls out. Be bold. Speak for yourself.

[JimC]

Matter is a concept in our developing model of the universe that has undergone many, many revisions.

All of them prompted by either experimental data, or refinements in mathematical analysis.

None by straight philosophy.

Or even gay philosophy...

[pErvinalia]

How do you prove, in a 'scientific sense', that matter exists?

Because in a scientific sense, matter is a scientific term.

Irrelevant to the question.

It's easy to prove it exists in a scientific sense by simply observing it.

You've just made a philosophical claim... an absurd metaphysical claim. Namely, that observed/experienced A = A. In other words, you've just made a monkey of yourself.

Bollocks. The proof in a scientific context involves observation. That's why the fact that I was referring to a scientific sense IS relevant to the question.

I asked you about the actual existence of matter.

To say that the observation/experience of matter suffices as its proof is to imply that observed/experienced A = A. For instance, that the observation/experience of a tree proves that trees actually exist. Well squire, it doesn't, since the observation/experience of something is a phenomenon happening to/within the observer. The actual existence of A relates to its identity independent of (external to) the observer. And yes, you have engaged in absurd metaphysics.

Oh, actual existence, why didn't you say?

That's philosophy. As I said, I am talking about science. Science exists in a methodological naturalism philosophical framework. The philosophical assumptions have already been made if you are practising science. Hence why, in a scientific context, it is patently easy to prove that matter exists. Simply observe it. THAT's science.

I'm thinking more of a scientific problem that you don't quite grasp or think has a flaw in it. Or whatever it is you reckon passes for serious discussion.

How does the ovum become [say] a human being?

What, am I wikipedia?

More like Willy Wonka.

This is simple stuff. If you think there is a problem hidden in there, out with it, man!

Is the process possible without an underlying code? Because hackenslash denies that there are any codes involved in the reproduction process. According to him, the whole code shebang is an essentially unscientific narrative.

It seems like a semantic point to me. It's not technically a code. It's a dataset upon which a biological algorithm works. No real mystery there, I wouldn't think. The real mystery is how self-replication kicked off in the first place.

[pErvinalia]

...Point being, Actual Existence™ doesn't matter one wit more to you than to me. If you think so, then by all means confine your reply to that realm, with no coarse observational/experiential artifacts here to cheapen it.

Of course it matters, but for 'spiritual' reasons/consequences you probably haven't given much thought to. I mean, how the fuck could it be of no consequence to you to discover that there is no world beyond the experience of it? Are you serious?

The Actual Existence™ of matter, as you've supposed it, don't mean doodlysquat if it has no effect. Feel free to "need" it for your own "spirituality", and talk about it at great length and energy, if begging questions is how you pursue happiness.

Yeah,

[jamest]

Is the process possible without an underlying code? Because hackenslash denies that there are any codes involved in the reproduction process. According to him, the whole code shebang is an essentially unscientific narrative.

It seems like a semantic point to me. It's not technically a code. It's a dataset upon which a biological algorithm works.

Seems to me that algorithm and code are equally inappropriate concepts to use in terms of producing an entirely physical narrative.

Are you some sort of scientific expert?