Unknown magic sites in starting provinces?

[E. Albright]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Any scientist would strongly disagree with you because there are Unknown substances which have still yet to be found and created.
[...]
If a new fuel was developed next year... this qualifies now as an unknown nonexistent object.

For heavens sake goto school !

Please calm down.

Methinks the problem here is essentially one of semantics. I blame the English langauge. On one hand, we have the notion of "discovering" something which was created; i.e., something that did not exist. On the other hand, we have the notion of "discovering" things which existed but were unknown; e.g., a new species of parrot or moose. One refers to gaining knowledge of something which previously had no referent, and the other refers to gaining knowledge of something which previously had a referent of which the learner was ignorant. The single term "discover" conflates the two, but one can and ought to make a distinction.

If for some reason all gold in the world vanished... the properties/qualities of gold would still exist even if everyone lost knowledge about it.

Um. This doesn't parse for me. How could the properties/qualities of gold exist without a referent? Do you mean that things that were metal, pyrite-colored, more-or-less as dense as lead, etc., but not all of the above and thus "gold", would continue to exist? Or do you mean that gold's "goldness" would continue to exist in an abstract (ideal) form? And if the latter, are we then talking something like a Platonic Ideal (in that you've also posited that everyone will have forgotten what gold is, and "goldness" could not then just be a mental construct of what it is to be gold)?

[ March 19, 2004, 20:48: Message edited by: E. Albright ]

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by NTJedi:

For heavens sake goto school !

For heavens sake, take a rhetorics course! - or a logic course. If you want to argue that you can assign known/unknown status to nonexistent objects, you can do much, much, better than to try to do it by blurring the distinction between an unknown idea and an unknown object on the one hand, and between a physical object developed through millenia in the real world and a simulated physical object created in an instant with no pre-history in a game on the other!

"All scientists say..." and "goto school" just don't cut it! Because they don't and we have.

[ March 19, 2004, 21:04: Message edited by: Peter Ebbesen ]

[GavinWheeler]

Originally posted by E. Albright:
Well. This depends. Under certain metaphysical systems, one can have non-existent objects that possess qualities. We could, for example, drag out such hideous entities as Platonic Ideals . But of course at that point we should likely fall into a bitter, sectarian squabble as to precisely what "exists" means...

Of course, under Plato's system there is a neat answer to that in the concept of a platonic existence. Personally, if you differentiate between the concept of something and the thing itself, the signifier and the signified, I don't see where a problem exists.

For example we all know that "a unicorn has a horn on its head", but we are talking about the concept, the mythical entity. The concept exists and has qualities, but the thing itself does not. If we try to talk about a physical unicorn having or lacking a horn, we are in quite different territory and should produce the unicorn in question before the debate is sensible.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
For heavens sake goto school !

You need to take your own advice. There is no such word "goto" in modern English. This term only exists in (obsolete) computer Languages such as BASIC. The correct phrasing would be "For heaven's sake, go to school!". Please note the use of appropriate punctuation, which you also failed to use. If you're going to admonish people (in an insulting fashion no less) to improve their education, the least you could do is get it right yourself.

[GavinWheeler]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Any scientist would strongly disagree with you because there are Unknown substances which have still yet to be found and created.

I have a PhD in molecular physical chemistry and a dozen publications - does that make me enough of a 'scientist' to qualify for your appeal to authority? And even a first year undergraduate should know that you can generate a list of all the elements (at least of normal matter) that can possibly exist just by counting protons.

As I said, even if no atoms of a theoretical element exists, we can still know that the 'element' exists in potentia, can often work out probable qualities of atoms with that number of protons (such as how many neutrons it needs to be as stable as possible) and so on.

But you are confusing the general with the specific. To use your example, you are confusing the general properties of the element gold with the qualities of a specific lump of the stuff. The concept of gold, the laws that govern it and set the properties of atoms with 79 protons, all exist whether or not any of the actual stuff exists. The concept is not the same thing as the concrete specific sample.

Originally posted by NTJedi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GavinWheeler:

PS: It is possible for a gold/copper/diamond deposit to suddenly come into existence in your back yard, especially if you live somewhere geologically exciting like Hawaii.

Goto school as diamonds and gold do not SUDDENLY come into existence. Or search the internet and you'll see what is needed !

---

Again, you confuse a deposit of the stuff with the stuff in the deposit. Take your own advice: look up what a 'diatreme' is and tell us if you would want to be around when one surfaces suddenly.

If you can understand how these events could create a deposit of gold or diamonds in a particular location, but would not 'create' the gold or diamonds in the deposit, you'll be on the way to understanding the kind of fundamental logical errors you are making.

[fahdiz]

Oh...my...goodness...

I hadn't really checked into this thread for a while...and I cannot believe you are still trying to argue this point, NTJedi - especially with name-calling and accusing some quite accomplished folks of needing to "goto school", as you put it.

You are wrong. It is okay to be wrong once in a while. The important thing is to take it like a man, and admit it.

[NTJedi]

Arryn...
It was a typo... missed the spacebar... big deal and your post is nothing but an off topic flame. Stay focused or please stay off the topic.


=================

Originally posted by GavinWheeler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by NTJedi:
[qb] Any scientist would strongly disagree with you because there are Unknown substances which have still yet to be found and created.

I have a PhD in molecular physical chemistry and a dozen publications - does that make me enough of a 'scientist' to qualify for your appeal to authority?

---

Then you should well know that there are things which qualify as unknown and nonexistent. I've listed only a few examples... to say someone or something knows everything about all nonexistent objects/things is obviously wrong.
A new fuel developed next year... qualifies now as an unknown nonexistent object. The discussion for developing the futuristic fuel may not have even started yet.


[quote]
As I said, even if no atoms of a theoretical element exists, we can still know that the 'element' exists in potentia, can often work out probable qualities of atoms with that number of protons (such as how many neutrons it needs to be as stable as possible) and so on.

The concept of gold, the laws that govern it and set the properties of atoms with 79 protons, all exist whether or not any of the actual stuff exists.

Based on my example... The properties for creating gold would be possible yes... but until that took place gold would remain as an unknown nonexistent object because there would be no available samples(thus nonexistent). There would only be the knowledge that yes it creates something(thus unknown). Even taken to a more basic level a spider web was unknown and non-existent until the first time it was actually created.

[ March 19, 2004, 22:55: Message edited by: NTJedi ]