Does EVERYTHING have an opposite?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Saying "It's nothing to do with metaphysics" is nonsense, VVD. It's everything to do with metaphysics. It's on a scale, yes, but only if your belief in the underlying metaphysic of the Universe is modern day science.

Which is entirely reasonable, of course, but it gets a bit different in Philosophy.

Yes, and I didn't state in philosophical terms.

So let's rephrase- that's nonsense, unless you're saying this, which you are, but if you weren't, nonsense.

I would like to hear a proper exegesis of the philosophical argument, not mere 'It's science, but the rest is metaphysics and that, dunno how to explain it though.'

Well, that's just not engaging with the argument then, is it?

Regardless, that statement was still wrong. It is a clash of metaphysical beliefs- your science versus Lil's dualism- and hence you cannot say metaphysics are not involved.

This makes your entire argument come down to "I don't believe in dualism". There's no point, therefore, in trying to argue down Dualism based on the precepts of a different metaphysic, because that simply re-states the basic statement.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, that's just not engaging with the argument then, is it?

Regardless, that statement was still wrong. It is a clash of metaphysical beliefs- your science versus Lil's dualism- and hence you cannot say metaphysics are not involved.

No, because I was referring to my own example.

I didn't personally engage with the argument as it has not yet been stated with any clarity.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

This makes your entire argument come down to "I don't believe in dualism".

It doesn't, because that's not actually true.

Well then you are going to have to argue the point very differently, then, because your post above pretty much says "Science says Dualism is wrong" and that is a simple belief clash. You cannot both have such faith in science and not disbelieve in dualism.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well then you are going to have to argue the point very differently, then, because your post above pretty much says "Science says Dualism is wrong" and that is a simple belief clash. You cannot both have such faith in science and not disbelieve in dualism.

Oh dear. I'm not actually saying that.

I set one viewpoint, someone hopefully applies the other.Then we move on.

Thesis and synthesis. Opposites perhaps.

So...

Lil B (I suppose)- how do you see the concept of systematically aligned opposites (or dualism, if we must) working on examples such as 'a grape'?

That's where I feel the thread has gone a bit mental.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Sure, everything is everything. I don't deny this view.

If everything is one, how can there be opposites? There are only opposites if you believe in the illusion

Originally posted by Deano
If everything is one, how can there be opposites? There are only opposites if you believe in the illusion

Hippy.

i'll condemn you to hell louis!

What is the opposite of a neutron?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I most certainly did not say anything of the sort.

I said ''which things in your view do not have an opposite''. I do not share the same view as you.

It's not really about opinion... It's more fact, it's science; I do not have a genetic opposite.

And things being random has everything to do with it. If you say, certain things have opposites, and certain things do not, then there has to be a pattern of things which have and those which do not have an opposite.

No offence but what the f**k are you on about? You can't work out an algorithm to explain why some things have opposites and some things don't. There doesn't have to be a pattern; the PMCC could be zero. Even if there is a pattern it's not really relevant to the conversation that is happening in this thread.

What group does not have opposites? occurances, things, ideas?

A unique genetic organism does not have an exact opposite. That's one example right there.

Giving me an example of a grape or piano does not constitute as an answer.

🤨

*EDIT*

Originally posted by PVS
*EDIT*

Smart move.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What is the opposite of a neutron?

Originally posted by lord xyz
anti-neutron.

There is no anti-neutron. Neutrons have a neutral charge.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no anti-neutron. Neutrons have a neutral charge.

Originally posted by lord xyz
There is an anti-neutron, it's anti-matter.

Anti-matter is anti-protons or anti-electrons, not anti-nutron.

Originally posted by lord xyz
There is an anti-neutron, it's anti-matter.

Not wrong my dear fellow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineutron

Originally posted by §P0oONY
Not wrong my dear fellow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineutron

OK, but I don't understand how that would work.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK, but I don't understand how that would work.

srug

I'm no Physicist.