tribalbeeyatch

For the love of God, man! PLEASE do me a favor and look up "ad hominem" in the dictionary.

(And while you're at it you might want to look up "ignored" too)

EggplantTrent

How is that an ad-hominem post?

Mageth

ad-hominem post ignored.

You appear to have a very different definition of "ad hominem" than I do. Clutch's post didn't seem the least bit ad hom.

Clutch

xian,

Infinity is consistent with boundedness. This is a basic truth about infinity. Hence your claim, that it's a misnomer to speak of an localized infinite existent, is false.

Simple.

Philosoft

xian, your wolf-cries of "ad hominem" after every other thing Clutch posts are growing tiresome. The moderators are well aware of what constitutes an ad hominem fallacy and we will take the necessary steps to correct or prevent when it is warranted. We don't have to have it pointed out to us whenever someone uses a sarcastic tone and, in any case, it does not advance the discussion to waste an entire post to tell us all what you won't respond to. Thanks.

~Philosoft, EoG mod

xian

existence does not require locality. Things can conceptually exist that are not localized (although you could make an argument that they are localized inside the mass of ones brain)

Does not quantum mechanics support that existence does not require locality? I am open to this, however. What are your thoughts?


Well lets assume the worst for my argument. Lets assume existence requires locality.
IF existence requires locality, then that Locality implies space and time as it exists in our natural universe.

But God is a supernatural being, hence natural locality could not be a requirement. The concept of locality has meaning only in the natural universe, and is dependent upon time and space. And I would even argue that it loses meaning in the nautral universe without time.
The GPB is not dependent upon anything- this includes time and space. But locality is already dependent upon time and space, hence if something is not dependent upon time and space, then it is not subject to and therefore cannot be dependent upon the constrains of locality.

xian

his posts are certainly not in violation of the forum rules, which I have read. I am not asking any moderation governing them and apologize if such remarks for me implied that. His posts are fully acceptable to the forum...they are not, however, acceptable to me.

Mageth

Does not quantum mechanics support that existence does not require locality? I am open to this, however. What are your thoughts?

Not to my knowledge. QM, or more specifically Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, states that "The more precisely the POSITION is determined, the less precisely the MOMENTUM is known". It doesn't say that locality is not required, merely that locality may not be able to be precicely determined.

Mageth

existence does not require locality. Things can conceptually exist that are not localized (although you could make an argument that they are localized inside the mass of ones brain)

There's a big gap between existence, as in an extant being, and "conceptual" existence.

xian

Then it assumes locality exists....just that we don't know where. I agree with you. We could always say that such particles are localized to the universe. SO yes, your points are well received. After thinking about this some more, I would have to say that for anything that exists in this universe, locality is necessary. I am in agreement.

sorry, i had just not given a lot of thought to the questions "Does existence require locality?"

i am tending to say YES to that question, as it pertains to the natural universe.

however, if supernatural existence exists, that proposition could not apply.