TheGeckomancer

That statement is also true. It doesn't detract from the truth of my statement lol. Actually, I think by my definition reality would fall under things we discovered .

No. We make definitions for colors. Colors are objective they are wave lengths of light with measurable differences. The definitions we make are subjective, such as how one color appears to a person vs a different person, but the thing we discovered, that wave length of light is objective. Discoveries are objective, things we make can be either objective or subjective.

You are close. I would agree with you wholeheartedly but I don't believe any maths are hypothetical. That's whats been thought by every generation of person delving into abstract math, that it would never have any real world application. Some took pride in this. They were wrong.

My first post was meant to mimic yours, and while only a partial argument it does underlie the flaws in yours.. Nothing you have to say takes that many paragraphs. I don't like reading excessively windy things. It bothers me because you may have really solid ideas under all the fluff but I don't want to dig through it. I literally didn't read what you put up. Just that my name was in it. Don't use 2 words where 1 is sufficient I guess. And if you really feel thats the MINIMUM number of sentences you can use to phrase your arguments, lay it out clearer. So I will present my argument really clearly and in very few sentences. There are only 2 things that exist. Things we make. And things we discover. Things we make can be objective or subjective. Things we discover are objective. Unless they are false. I don't think you can disagree with anything I said. Maybe you can posit a third category of things that are but that is an uphill battle because you are already adding needless complexity.

If there is dark matter. (personally I favor the multiverse bleeding gravity hypothesis) I favor the idea that it would be an elementary particle. With no state to decay into.

Component of matter. I am not trying to nitpick but even by that description it meets what I say. I am not calling quarks nothing. They are definitely the BUILDING blocks of matter. But not actually matter.

Enough cells in one place gives you something to look at and touch. Enough quarks in one place does not. I don't see that as artificial or useless. If no amount of a quantity makes it "real" then it's not matter.

That was my point. So that makes particles outside of empirical realm. We cover that with indirect observation and thats okay, but to me particles aren't matter. It doesn't make sense to call it matter for several reasons. And that is one of them.

There are no systems in the human body that are irreducibly complex. There are no cellular functions we have that are irreducibly complex. Every single thing we are has been observed elsewhere in nature in varying complexities. The problem with ALL irreducible complexity arguments is it assumes your perspective now is your perspective forever. At one time earth wind water and fire were irreducibly complex. Then atoms. Then particles. It's much safer to assume that anything that appears irreducibly complex is actually a lack of knowledge on our part. As that has been the historical trend.

Sciwiz. The reason why I haven't bothered to respond point by point is because most of your words are empty fluff.

I specifically mean unaided. No technology. Could enough quarks be accumulated in one spot to have a physically visible chunk with light bouncing off.

Sorry I was responding to Sciwiz comment. I should have been clear about that. I am not yammering. This is an important point. Nobody invented math. We discovered it. If we discovered it it's an objective part of reality because we didn't make it.

I propose the exact oppposite. Declaring that math is subjective is tantamount to declaring the infallibility of human perceptions. My problem with the idea that math isn't objective is the fact that we don't get to determine any of it's rules. Some people want to claim we invented math, but if we did we had NO SAY in how it happened, including the inventors. Inventors decide how their inventions come together and work. No one ever had that choice with math. We didn't get to decide right answers. Math would objectively tell us we are wrong. So the idea that it's a man made system that functions perfectly and describes the universe anywhere equally well seems absolutely ludicrous.

It's not really a matter of if science can explain a universe without God. We may answer every question science can answer and be left with some only God can answer. Most real scientists don't actually rule this out. The problem is with ASSUMING that this is the case. See this is why people like Richard Dawkins call it the God of the Gaps. Because God for most people throughout history is what we don't know. What causes lightning? God? What makes rain? God? See the problem? These questions have real answers. Throwing God in there place seriously inhibits our knowledge and the rate at which we build knowledge. Most real scientists will not have the audacity to tell you there is or is not a god. They haven't done double blind studies or had anyone triple check there work for goodness' sake! But even amongst the ones who do not know, many will still claim atheist. Because for a scientist the healthier stance is to assume all questions can be answered and move out from there. I myself am what I call an effective atheist. If we could somehow create a test that would scientifically prove god. And it came back positive. My life would not change 1 tiny bit. The proof of god does not prove anything else. But honestly, if I were a professional respected scientist I would just say atheist without any disclaimers. Why? Because we really need to get away from using religion as a model for how the universe works, or really... Anything people should do in society..... I would feel I am setting a bad example by being honest as weird as that seems.

No because any amount of mass you could take. Would be finite. And therefore not achieve your goals. Beyond that this whole theory requires you to reverse entropy (by compressing mass and energy on a universal scale). The act of reversing entropy is about equally likely to creating a device that generates infinite energy or mass. It's that level of laws of physics breaking. I would legitimately believe you more if you said you rediscovered a lost form of magic. Also isn't this theory excessively exotic and complicated? We already know that if you can generate a great enough gravitational field (mass is one way), this can massively warp space. Allowing for distance covering effects that are essentially teleportation. But it doesn't require all the energy in the universe.

A visible to the naked eye amount that I can grab with my fist. My point is i don't think you can stack them like sand on top of each other and ever have something you can SEE and touch. Correct me if I am wrong, but particles are strictly out of the empirical realm?

Yes but could you actually LOOK at and touch a handful of quarks? Can they exist in that state? What would that even do to touch them?

I have always favored the empirical definition of matter. Something I can interact with. Touch taste smell feel see or hear. I don't THINK I can pick up a handful of quarks. I don't know honestly but don't think so.

Maybe I am super outdated by encyclopedia britannica defines an atom smallest unit into which matter can be divided.

That is an amazing point I never thought of.

Regardless. If they form a structure, no matter how different, the structure can be broken down. What you would be implying there is a form of matter that resists entropy. Which would be awesome but impossible.

Agreed. And I am not saying that they are. I am just saying IF THEY ARE they still follow all the rules we know. Just a bit exotic to us.

No I mean it has atoms. Particles bound together into a structure. Particles in a free state don't clump like that. To be clear. I am not saying dark matter IS atoms. I am saying if dark matter IS matter than it's atoms. Because thats the definition of the word. And we know we can break atoms to release light, heat, and radiation. I am not making any crazy claims or anything outside of science.

If it is matter. It has an atomic structure. The atomic structure can be broken, releasing light, radiation and other things that have energy. Or am I misunderstanding? I know the way I said it was super simple but I don't feel it was inaccurate? Well it was inaccurate but I mean, I think we all understand what I mean?

Well really the problem comes down to energy densities. Every bullet you fire carries it's own fuel to propel it. You would be replacing all of the gunpowder that is used to accelerate that bullet with stored electricity that would be used to run the magnetic rail. The problem is that the best batteries in the world have nowhere near the energies densities of any solid chemical we use for propellant. In larger scale this problem really becomes irrelevant because you could hook up a static one straight to a hydro electric dam and fire scrap for nearly eternity without running out of ammo. On larger scale it becomes way cheaper because even though the raw energy required to power the weapon is greater, you remove all cost from ammo and manufacturing complexity.