material contingency

Even so, the very first thing one must consider is where or not the thing being considered is necessary or contingent in its being. Considerations beyond that point, apart from that consideration, may or may not be accurate. There's really no way to test apart from its essential nature.

 

You got it, and the reasoning behind it. To date, I am left to believe it.

 

Bricklayer merely asserts. It's his MO. That, and he is addicted to the words "necessary" and "contingent".

 

Why is that the first thing one has to consider? If I am only interested in the complexity, it seems to me quite possible to only consider that. It seems to me they will be accurate, for instance, you can consider complexity of a set of apples without first establishing that such a set of apples exists.

 

True, when considering existence. However, not so when considering being. Being is either actual existence or actualized existence.
We must also remember that our very considerations are contingent in their being; they are subjective.

 

Amen. Don't we all ? We, as contingent beings, know what we know not-necessarily. We will never have proof positive of anything, ever. The closest thing we will ever have to proof positive is experimental repeatability. That goes for you and me and everyone else reading this.

 

I don't see why it wouldn't be true about being. One can argue for or against the arguments of complexity without first having resolved arguments about the nature of being.

 

Apart from recognizing material contingency, for example, one could consider that material spontaneously increases in complexity.
The recognition of material contingency, for example, prohibits such errant considerations.
The same goes with necessity. Apart from the recognition of necessity, one could consider them self necessary.

 

The conclusion of the necessity of a "necessary being" is exactly as much an unprovable theory and is exactly as believably true as is the theory that energy has always existed. Both are theories and both are equally valid. So it all comes down to what one is more inclined to believe, as determined by one's own psychology.

 

but you cant support your assertion. you just keep repeating it.

 

I do not seek to prove ideas; I seek to disprove them. To date, I have been unable to disprove my "assertion".

 

Energy is the effect of material change. If matter is contingent in its being, energy is also.

 

All matter resolves into pure energy under the right conditions of pressure and temperature. There are no objects in a black hole. There is only energy in the form of plasma and radiation according to physics.

 

None the less, energy is the effect of material change. By the way, plasma is not only physical, it is also the physical form of most matter. There is more plasma in the universe than there is solid, liquid and gaseous matter combined.

 

Plasma is comprised of ions. Ions are charged fragments of molecules, for example when the H2 molecule is torn apart into two charged atoms, those atoms/ions are "plasma". Atoms are comprised of particles, like protons and electrons. Atomic particles are comprised of quarks. Quarks are condensed packets of structured energy.

So everything is ultimately comprised of energy masquerading as matter. And therefore your OP is flawed.

Check here.

 

that isn't how it works. If you make a claim, you bear the burden of proving that claim. repeating the claim does not do this, so if that is what you wish to continue doing, then your claim can be summarily dismissed as unsupported opinion.

 

Again, energy is the effect of material change. No particle of matter can occupy the same position, relative to the balance of matter, in any two increments of time. Indeed, no subatomic particle within an atom can occupy the same position, relative to the balance of the subatomic particles within that atom, in any two increments of time. All matter is subject to constant change. Anything subject to change is subject. It is contingent in its being.

Energy, like space and time, only actually exists relative to matter. Time, space and energy are expressions of matter.

 

One of the "claims" I've made is that the closest thing contingent beings have to proof positive is experimental repeatability.
You cannot offer proof positive of anything sans experimental repeatability, nor can I.

Science is the testing of ideas. The only remedy for doubt is testing. We, as contingent beings, approach certainty through the exclusion process wherein doubt is removed by testing. That is "how it works".

 

that isn't how it works. If you make a claim, you bear the burden of proving that claim. repeating the claim does not do this, so if that is what you wish to continue doing, then your claim can be summarily dismissed as unsupported opinion.

 

You're asking me to do something that you cannot do. The closest thing to proof positive that you can offer is experimental repeatability. To look, to hear, to taste, touch and smell is to test. To reason is to test. Science is the process of testing ideas, not proving them.

To date, what I am left to believe has not been, to my satisfaction, disproved.

It's not so much that any ideas are really ever proved to me as much as it that all of the other ideas, that I have considered, have been, to my satisfaction, disproved. Then, that's tested, and so on, and so on. The same goes for you. The same goes for all of us it seems.

 

No, I’m calling you out on your assertion. You have the burden of,proof since you made the claim. If you can not support it with evidence, then your assertion is dismissed.

 

Material contingency is empirical evidence of necessary being. In other words, if contingent being exists, by definition, necessary being must exist. To date, I cannot logically and honestly deny that matter is contingent in its being.

All matter is subject to constant and exhaustive change, and anything subject to change is subject. It is contingent in its being.
To date, I have been unable to disprove the above observations. I bring them here to continue to test them. I seek to disprove my ideas; I do not seek to prove them. The closest thing we will ever have to proof positive is experimental repeatability. Every time I look, every time I measure, every time I test, the result is the same. Therefore, to date, I am left to believe that matter is contingent in its being.

Seeking confirmation for ideas makes you read more like a preacher than a scientist.

 

This is restating your assertion. Since you can not support it with evidence, it is dismissed. Thank you for admitting it.

 

Science is the testing of ideas. Science is the exclusion process wherein doubt is removed by testing. The only remedy we have for doubt is testing.

Seek not affirmation. Seek always contradiction. Whatever remains is what you will be left to believe. Then, that will be tested, and so on, and so on. In doing so, you will be a scientist.

 

Did you wish to support your assertion, with evidence now? Or are you content with your assertion being dismissed?