And how pray tell is that incompatible with things beginning to exist?
Do you have some sort of argument that goes: because I cyghost, the person that did not begin to exist only see see things change form, they do not begin to exist?
At least make some sort of an argument…
Who said it was??? Is it really too much to ask for for you to pay attention to what others say rather than what you think they say??
At least make some sort of an argument...Mate, your memory truly sucks. Reread this thread carefully. That is the best advice I can give you. I cannot be of anymore assistance than that. It would be pointless.
Awesomeness, not only do you understand now that when something changes form it is not an argument or even an observation against the common sense realist view that things begin to exist. I think you are also starting to realise that it is an argument for why things begin to exist.
Heck, you admit you see existing things/stuff (you say “existing matter”, but your understanding and/or definition of the term "matter is desperately wanting) change form.
If you want, you can even make your very own argument based on your own observations:
If I were you, I’d spin this in my head a few times…
Don’t make my arguments for me. You suck too much at making your own.
So. Finally, after all the fucking drama we have something that you can point to “that begins to exist”. I note that it ain’t ex nihilo but what the hey eh? We work with what we got.
My knowledge of quarks are scrappy at best and I m afraid I’ll have to do some reading on that. But lets just get it straight, you argue ( you and not cyghost) that a down quark “begins to exist” when it changes from an up quark to a down quark?
Yep, or to put it differently:
Of course this “argument” can be optimized, but at least you have something to work with since you (luckily) see things/matter/stuff that change from.
It seems they do! Heavier quarks easily and spontaneously change to down quarks and up quarks through a process known as particle decay. And up quarks can change to down quarks and vice versa which causes beta decay - a proton (d[own]u[p]u[p]) change into a neutron (ddu), a positron and a neutrino. The neutron remains in the nucleus and the positron and neutrino is released.
2) A quark with a down form begins to exist when it is changed from an up form.Hold on cowboy, it seems premature and here is why.
All we see is a change in state. We have the same particle, the very same quark, only the charge (and weight) - and name if you want to be pedantic - has changed. I’m afraid that doesn’t bode well for “begin to exist”. If all you want to say is “change” when you say “begin to exist” I suggest you rather use change. When I think of “begin to exist” I think, nothing there, whoops, suddenly there. And granted this attempt of yours have the appearance of such, I don’t think it fits the bill. That quark was there all along! I can see why it may fool some though.
3) Therefore, when things change form, they begin or end to exist.I think your definition of "begin to exist" may need work... all this has served is me learning more about quarks (I swear to God they weren't there when I studied physics last) which has been fun and very useful.
Of course this "argument" can be optimized, but at least you have something to work with since you (luckily) see things/matter/stuff that change from.Optimize away.
with respect and thanks to hackenslash from rationalskeptics whom I approached for some info on top of my other web research.
It is simple really, you yourself admit to seeing a change in form.
That would lead to confused thinking. When one entity changes form into another, something ceases to exist and something else begins to exist (see above).
Sorry, the down quark was not there all along, an up quark was there that changed into a down quark. You can say “matter changes form”, but then again, you have no clear definition of matter (stuff as you call it right?) (note, if you are using “matter” in the A-T sense, make sure you fully grasp the concept). Saying “matter changes form” does not help you because when matter changes form, one form ceases to exist and another begins to exist.
An existing quark changes its state.
That would lead to confused thinking. When one entity changes form into another, something ceases to exist and something else begins to exist (see above).Not at all. Outside of the Kalaam Cosmological Argument, where do we use "begin to exist"? Other than perhaps the origin of the universe and the origin of life, both which in all probability is simply the result of changes in state. "Begin to exist" is the wrong terminology but please stop insinuating that I think nothing begins. There are many beginnings. Simply not things that begin to exist other than a change in state.
Sorry, the down quark was not there all along, an up quark was there that changed into a down quark.No need to be sorry. I understand that you are confused about what it means for something to "begin to exist" and see how you are confusing that with a "change in state".
You can say "matter changes form", but then again, you have no clear definition of matter (stuff as you call it right?) (note, if you are using "matter" in the A-T sense, make sure you fully grasp the concept). Saying "matter changes form" does not help you because when matter changes form, one form ceases to exist and another begins to exist.A-T can suck my balls. Seriously. Super duper seriously. Lets revisit the argument:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause
Everything?? We have no reason to accept that and we have nothing that begins to exist other than existing things changing state.
The universe began to exist
Did it? We simply don’t know if it did or didn’t.
As the very best argument for the existence of God, it fails dismally. I remain unconvinced and don’t understand why you and others like you are so easily duped into accepting something for which no evidence exists.
Even if we accept both premises as true and then the conclusion that The universe has a cause, it simply doesn’t follow that this cause has to be supernatural or a personal God for that matter. The argument is bollocks any which way you cut it.
No, an existing up quark changes to a down quark. A down quark begins to exist and an up quark ceases to exist. Again, here I think you do not understand the difference between universals and particulars.
Universals can be abstracted from particulars. You have this particular up quark or that particular down quark. From these particular quarks you can deduce a family (which in this case can be said to be a universal) of particles called quarks. Or you have this particular black dog (say Rufus) and that particular brown dog (say brutus) and from their shared properties deduce the species (a universal in this case) of dogs.
Particulars are argued to begin and end to exist. And in the example of quarks, when they change form, they begin and end to exist.
Beginning to exist is common language. I began to exist, that car began to exist, this computer began to exist. It is used everywhere… The KCA is just one particular instance.
You are the one that have have said “nothing begins to exist” many times (this thread being just one example). I am glad you realise now that there are many beginnings. And we both agree that things that change form or state or have beginnings or whatever does not mean they do not begin to exist. In fact, when a thing changes state or form, something ceases to exist and something begins to exist. Many beginnings. Simple really.
You provide no reason or argument for when a thing changes form or state, it means something did not begin to exist.
Again, it is very simple. When particular things change form/state/or whatever, something begins to exist and something ceases to exist in the actual world.
I don’t use it and in everyday conversation I have never heard it used that I can recall offhand… No one has ever told me, that car began to exist, this computer began to exist or that he or she has began to exist. I think this is an assumption at best.
You are the one that have have said "nothing begins to exist" many times (this thread being just one example).In response to the claim that things "begin to exist". You haven't convinced me that "things begin to exist" other than existing things changing state.
I am glad you realise now that there are many beginnings.Oh fuck you. I have *never* said there isn't and that you somehow think I have is your own fucked up reasoning. "Beginnings" is no way "beginning to exist". (please open thread on forum etiquette where you examine why misrepresenting me gets you a "fuck you" in return...)
And we both agree that things that change form or state or have beginnings or whatever does not mean they do not begin to exist.Quite so. But that doesn't mean that “changing state” equates to “begin to exist” either.
In fact, when a thing changes state or form, something ceases to exist and something begins to exist. Many beginnings. Simple really.Not so simple. When things change form, they change form. “Begin to exist” is misleading at best.
You provide no reason or argument for when a thing changes form or state, it means something did not begin to exist. Again, it is very simple. When particular things change form/state/or whatever, something begins to exist and something ceases to exist in the actual world.Why does quarks change state?
Your biggest problem is accepting that when something changes form, something begins to exist and something ceases to exist. Do you understand the the difference between universals and particulars? Also, do you understand the differences between continuants and occurrents or perdurants and endurants? How about substance vs accident? Perhaps after you read a bit about this (on your own so that no-one else gives you false or wrong information) you will understand why some thing begin and cease to exist when they change form?
I have lots of problems. Currently going to Home Affairs for the third time cold be seen as the biggest. These change hourly.
Is a quark perdurant or endurant?
From a Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) viewpoint as well as an A-T point of view, quarks are universals while particular instantiations of quarks e.g. an up quark or a down quark will be continuants/endurants.
BFO uses SNAP and SPAN systems which is analogous to being and becoming (change) from an A-T view. Both ontologies are realist and both deal with change as well as existing being.
Endurants are those entities that can be observed-perceived as a complete concept, at no matter which given snapshot of time.
I rest my case.
You have a case? It looks like you are struggling to fully understand continuants/endurants as well as universals and particulars.
Let’s try this again:
Continuants/endurants are “entities whose identity continues to be recognizable over some extended interval of time” or “entities that exists in full at any time in which it exists at all, persists through time while maintaining its identity and has no temporal parts” or as wiki puts it (the full text this time) “Also known as continuant, or in some cases ‘substance’. Endurants are those entities that can be observed-perceived as a complete concept, at no matter which given snapshot of time. Were we to freeze time we would still be able to perceive/conceive the entire endurant.”. The wiki entry can be misunderstood if there is no proper understanding of universals and particulars (an understanding of physical and abstract endurants/continuants is also useful to help you understand better).
To take the dog example. You have Rufus and Brutus as particular dogs and “dog” as a species of animals.
If there existed some alien on a planet that has never seen a dog and someone explains to him what a dog is and show him a few pictures, that alien will be able to form an abstract concept and understand “dog” as a species of animal (after explaining to it what animal is as well :P) yet never actually see actual (only pictures) instances of particular dogs.
In this example, species of dog (the universal) and Rufus and Brutus (particulars) are both endurants/continuants. It is also useful perhaps to distinguish between physical and abstract endurants/continuants. Abstract endurants/continuants can be viewed (as per wiki) as endurants/continuants that can be perceived as complete concepts no matter which given snapshot of time (for example the concept of fundamental particles such as quarks or the species of dog). Physical/material endurants/continuants on the other hand are particular instances of universals that maintain their personal identity (this up quark or that down quarks or Brutus and Rufus) over a period of time.
I have and its resting. Sjjjjjjjjjjjt.
Lulz. A “form” is not a thing - it’s a relation, shitburger.
shitburger
ha ha ha ha epic. i reserve the right to use that at will.