Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
    He's not saying that language isn't a medium for communication, nor that one can subscribe whatever meaning he wants to a word completely arbitrarily. What he is saying is that language is flexible. Have you heard of figurative speech? Imagery? Your problems with people's posts are that you want everyone to use language literally in the way that the dictionary defines it, but you leave no consideration for imagery nor flexibility.

    Words mean different things in different places. The word "**** (c u Next Tuesday)" in Scotland is synonymous with "person" or "arse", whereas if you go to America and it's incredibly offensive with a different meaning entirely.
    Ever gone to the "swimming baths", Zaki? They're only called pools in America, the word bath there is exclusive to the utility in the bathroom. But here it can be used to mean pools.
    Ever played football? Here it means football, where you kick it with your foot. There it means football, where you carry it in your hands.


    The first English dictionary was published in 1582. The English language was spoken well before then, God forbid that you lived in that time Zaki or you'd have been unable to communicate because we didn't have dictionary definitions. :rolleyes:
    Sure, language is flexible but it has to also remain sufficiently stable to be reliable as means of communication. That means that the meanings of words CANNOT just change willy-nilly. Dictionaries are the only way in which we can all reference the meanings of words universally. His reluctance to recognize the authority of good dictionaries gives the lie to his claim that he is not asking for the right to alter the meanings of words arbitrarily. I for one don't believe him - though I welcome his denials.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zaki)
    Sure, language is flexible but it has to also remain sufficiently stable to be reliable as means of communication. That means that the meanings of words CANNOT just change willy-nilly. Dictionaries are the only way in which we can all reference the meanings of words universally. His reluctance to recognize the authority of good dictionaries gives the lie to his claim that he is not asking for the right to alter the meanings of words arbitrarily. I for one don't believe him - though I welcome his denials.
    Meanings of words change all the time. You will rarely get the same definition from different people, or different dictionaries, even though they may have things in common. To rely on dictionaries is to ignore how words are used in context in a form of life.

    Even scientific words go through transitions and have completely different definitions... i.e 'mass' to Newton was different to Einstein's definition.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    holy jesus, you guys got trolled over 22 pages.

    i salute you, zaki.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhySoLimey)
    holy jesus, you guys got trolled over 22 pages.

    i salute you, zaki.

    Don't be silly! I take it you have NOTHING of consequence to contribute, eh?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meloncoly)
    Meanings of words change all the time. You will rarely get the same definition from different people, or different dictionaries, even though they may have things in common. To rely on dictionaries is to ignore how words are used in context in a form of life.

    Even scientific words go through transitions and have completely different definitions... i.e 'mass' to Newton was different to Einstein's definition.
    No. Meanings of words may be extended or deepened. But when they change to something completely unrelated or even the opposite of the original then corruption, which is ALWAYS sponsored and driven by linguistic vandals, is at work -. Such things not only lead to the demise of a language if not quickly terminated but even to the death of the cultures that have arisen out of and were supported by such languages.

    Also, no: Einstein and Newton did NOT see mass in two different ways. They BOTH saw it as INERTIA!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Chance is to choose ace. Haha, go and fight!

    Win-Choice
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zaki)
    No. Meanings of words may be extended or deepened. But when they change to something completely unrelated or even the opposite of the original then corruption, which is ALWAYS sponsored and driven by linguistic vandals, is at work -. Such things not only lead to the demise of a language if not quickly terminated but even to the death of the cultures that have arisen out of and were supported by such languages.

    Also, no: Einstein and Newton did NOT see mass in two different ways. They BOTH saw it as INERTIA!
    Wrong. Einstein DID see mass differently to Newton - you are arguing against facts. It was NOT an extension of, or "deepened" version of Newton's. There were entirely different fundamentals involved (only Einstein held it convertible to energy). The use of a word may have resemblances to another use - but there is no magical fixed essence of a word. Especially considering the different contexts in which a word can be used.

    Regarding 'gay' - how is homosexual an extension of happy/merry? It isn't. Awful used to mean the exact opposite. You admitted words change but your idea of 'linguistic vandals' is absurd - words changing their meaning doesn't lead to the death of cultures.

    Another embarrassing 'argument' from yourself. You directly contradict yourself by saying 'no words don't change'... but when they do... then it's linguistic vandals at work (irrelevant even if true - which it isn't). It's a completely incoherent argument.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meloncoly)
    Wrong. Einstein DID see mass differently to Newton - you are arguing against facts. It was NOT an extension of, or "deepened" version of Newton's. There were entirely different fundamentals involved (only Einstein held it convertible to energy). The use of a word may have resemblances to another use - but there is no magical fixed essence of a word. Especially considering the different contexts in which a word can be used.

    Regarding 'gay' - how is homosexual an extension of happy/merry? It isn't. Awful used to mean the exact opposite. You admitted words change but your idea of 'linguistic vandals' is absurd - words changing their meaning doesn't lead to the death of cultures.

    Another embarrassing 'argument' from yourself. You directly contradict yourself by saying 'no words don't change'... but when they do... then it's linguistic vandals at work (irrelevant even if true - which it isn't). It's a completely incoherent argument.
    Ok. So you can tell us here then how Einstein saw mass differently from Newton, eh? (This should be a laugh)

    Let's the rest of your comment to one side for the moment.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zaki)
    Ok. So you can tell us here then how Einstein saw mass differently from Newton, eh? (This should be a laugh)

    Let's the rest of your comment to one side for the moment.
    Newton stated that mass is an entity separate from energy. Einstein's physics posits that mass is a manifestation of energy.

    Any excuses for your contradictory and irrelevant post? It's verging on another one of your straw man arguments - only this time, it's doubly flawed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meloncoly)
    Newton stated that mass is an entity separate from energy. Einstein's physics posits that mass is a manifestation of energy.

    Any excuses for your contradictory and irrelevant post? It's verging on another one of your straw man arguments - only this time, it's doubly flawed.
    Where did Newton state that? And Einstein spoke only of the equivalence of mass and energy. He DIDN'T say they were the same thing. They are NOT! Does energy have mass and occupy space? Of-course not!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zaki)
    Don't be silly! I take it you have NOTHING of consequence to contribute, eh?
    no, i have nothing of consequence to contribute
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhySoLimey)
    no, i have nothing of consequence to contribute

    That's what I thought.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zaki)
    Where did Newton state that? And Einstein spoke only of the equivalence of mass and energy. He DIDN'T say they were the same thing. They are NOT! Does energy have mass and occupy space? Of-course not!
    Mass is an illusion to the mind, in reality it is impossible to determine the exact position and speed of any particle (Heisenberg principle). There are different theories on why therefore we can perceive matter in a defined location, some orientating around conciousness. Since it is impossible to create energy and therefore matter we can only assume its been ever present until other scientific evidence competes with it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Charzhino)
    Mass is an illusion to the mind, in reality it is impossible to determine the exact position and speed of any particle (Heisenberg principle). There are different theories on why therefore we can perceive matter in a defined location, some orientating around conciousness. Since it is impossible to create energy and therefore matter we can only assume its been ever present until other scientific evidence competes with it.
    It is only impossihle to create energy and matter by physical means. Matter DID NOT EXIST before the Big Bang. Neither did Energy. So they were both CREATED during that event!

    Also, if Matter is an illusion to you - a materialist - what then do you consider "real" at all given you also regard Consciousness and Will to be both illusions too?

    How do you perceive these "illusions" without Consciousness? And how do you generate them without Will? And given they're illusions, what makes you think they are eternal?

    You don't know whether you're coming or going, do you?

    Anyway, gotta go. Duty calls.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zaki)
    It is only impossihle to create energy and matter by physical means. Matter DID NOT EXIST before the Big Bang. Neither did Energy. So they were both CREATED during that event!
    Wrong because no one knows for certain what exactly existed before the Big Bang at all. The big bang allowed matter/particles to become apparent, therefore it is most likely that energy did exist before the big bang because saying otherwise would be illogical. Its either that or ''God'' created particles. Also going back to my point on not knowing what came before the big bang, there are other theories which dont rely on God. Multiverses, M- thoery, cyclical universes, etc. None require a absolute creator.

    Also, if Matter is an illusion to you - a materialist - what then do you consider "real" at all given you also regard Consciousness and Will to be both illusions too?
    I am not a materialist. Your saying as if I am giving my opinion that matter is an illusion, but its a fact.

    How do you perceive these "illusions" without Consciousness? And how do you generate them without Will? And given they're illusions, what makes you think they are eternal?

    You don't know whether you're coming or going, do you?

    Anyway, gotta go. Duty calls.
    Your first sentence doesnt make sense. As for the rest that comes under speculation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Charzhino)
    Wrong because no one knows for certain what exactly existed before the Big Bang at all. The big bang allowed matter/particles to become apparent, therefore it is most likely that energy did exist before the big bang because saying otherwise would be illogical. Its either that or ''God'' created particles. Also going back to my point on not knowing what came before the big bang, there are other theories which dont rely on God. Multiverses, M- thoery, cyclical universes, etc. None require a absolute creator.


    I am not a materialist. Your saying as if I am giving my opinion that matter is an illusion, but its a fact.



    Your first sentence doesnt make sense. As for the rest that comes under speculation.

    I can't get over people who think they can confess ignorance and then make a sweeping statement like "NO ONE KNOWS". How can you possibly know what EVERYONE ELSE KNOWS - given you've admitted your ignorance on quite small things.?

    A materialist is one who sees Matter as eternal. You do, don't you?

    No physicist has EVER claimed that Matter is an illusion. And since YOU claim it can't be created or destroyed, I don't know how you can claim it is also an illusion.

    Multiverse theories don't remove the need for ALL the individual universes to be created ALSO! Clearly, you've read a lot - but without much understanding; if you don't mind me saying so.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Zaki is good at formulating logical arguments.

    Not really.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zaki)
    I can't get over people who think they can confess ignorance and then make a sweeping statement like "NO ONE KNOWS". How can you possibly know what EVERYONE ELSE KNOWS - given you've admitted your ignorance on quite small things.?

    A materialist is one who sees Matter as eternal. You do, don't you?

    No physicist has EVER claimed that Matter is an illusion. And since YOU claim it can't be created or destroyed, I don't know how you can claim it is also an illusion.
    Read some quantum mechanics or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

    The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct "actuality" of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible, however - Heisenberg

    Multiverse theories don't remove the need for ALL the individual universes to be created ALSO! Clearly, you've read a lot - but without much understanding; if you don't mind me saying so.
    You need to remove this idea of creation, it just causes more questions of who created the creating creator and so on.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Charzhino)
    Read some quantum mechanics or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

    The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct "actuality" of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible, however - Heisenberg



    You need to remove this idea of creation, it just causes more questions of who created the creating creator and so on.
    Don't be silly! Are you suggesting that ANYTHING can JUST HAPPEN - FOR NO REASON? That is the antithesis of ALL science and logic, and opens the door ALL absurdities - including MAGIC! Do you believe in MAGIC?

    By the way, notice from your quote of Heisenberg that he doesn't care much for materialism.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Charzhino)
    X
    It's pointless to try to argue with him because he cannot understand anything beyond his ill-founded beliefs. He has no desire to actually debate and try to learn anything. Rather, he believes his knowledge to be superior to everyone else's and desires to try to look superior. Many people in this thread (including myself) have tried to argue with him from philosophical and physics standpoints - the problem is that he's unwilling or incapable of accepting any of these as premises. Don't waste your time, as I'm sure you have better things to do with your life.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 14, 2011
Poll
Who do you think it's more helpful to talk about mental health with?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.