|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 2, 2023 19:37:19 GMT
In observing atoms we affect atoms***:
1. The tool used to form atoms is in itself composed of atoms.
2. The atoms of the tool affect the atoms that are being observed as the tool creates the boundaries through which the atoms are observed.
3. An experiment is atoms affecting atoms and creates a self referential loop where the properties of the atoms are the result of the atoms we use to observe them.
4. There is no rule for how and what tool we use (i.e. a composition of atoms) thus the process of observing contains within it an element of irrationality and randomness.
5. The observation of atoms is an observation of our own irrationality and randomness.
***The term "atom" can be replaced with "particle" or "electron" or "neutron", etc.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jul 30, 2023 11:06:04 GMT
How is one the same as the other? What other? A point is a point. Two distinct points still share the same nature of being a point as 0 dimensionality cannot have difference otherwise it would be 0 dimensionality. Its not my definition it's the definition given by your special oh so loved philosophers that came up with the CONCEPT. Bottom line FACT is that you have never seen one in fact not a single person ever has seen one and just because a person can predict the outcome of an action that in no way means that the reason given by said person is the actual real reason for the outcome because there is always more then 1 good explanation for things and science has a bad habit of ignoring that important fact of life. Facts not my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 9, 2023 22:29:45 GMT
A point is a point. Two distinct points still share the same nature of being a point as 0 dimensionality cannot have difference otherwise it would be 0 dimensionality. Its not my definition it's the definition given by your special oh so loved philosophers that came up with the CONCEPT.Bottom line FACT is that you have never seen one in fact not a single person ever has seen one and just because a person can predict the outcome of an action that in no way means that the reason given by said person is the actual real reason for the outcome because there is always more then 1 good explanation for things and science has a bad habit of ignoring that important fact of life. Facts not my opinion. If definition is subject to ownership, as you have 'your' definition and I have 'mine' and the philosophers have 'theirs', then all truth as grounded in definition is contradictory.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 9, 2023 22:39:16 GMT
It makes sense until we use a concept of zooming, or accepting some background theories. Take Archimedes for instance, his logical conclusion about dive of any element to the bath with the water, and the pressure that is expected - is clear. Actually, Archimedes knew only few properties, the rest is the logical inference. I don't think that {a set of atoms the object + the set of atoms of a tool) is so important, if all what we need to know is {an effect of an object atom + a tool atom occurs} and all what is needed to be calculated is the trajectory, etc. Let's imagine the more serious and dangerous situation for science. Let's say that in absolutely any research the mess (or randomness) of atoms occur between the object and tools. However, if a series of experiment show the same result we do not need to assume whether or not there's a mess in that atom meet. Actually, so what if there's a randomness? What if I say to you, that the Sun is a collection of Helium. Does it mislead your observation of the sunset or sunrises? No, the same is about an automobile as a collecton of atoms. If the devs did lots of mistakes, and instead the steel Fe203, they used some Fe3SO4, nothing serious will occur, because if an automobile runs 50 km/h for one hour, its general distance will be 50 km. In your argument you've missed one important point: it is not necessary or fair that in any stakes (or relations) among any elements all the kind of relations are functional between them. No. If there's a result, this means there was a cause, and that is identical to the claim that - there was a function. Cause and effect are relative in space and time thus all causes are relative effects and all effects are relative causes. Under a monism both are effectively one thus leaving the spontaneous emergence of being as both cause and effect.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Aug 10, 2023 2:36:20 GMT
Its not my definition it's the definition given by your special oh so loved philosophers that came up with the CONCEPT.Bottom line FACT is that you have never seen one in fact not a single person ever has seen one and just because a person can predict the outcome of an action that in no way means that the reason given by said person is the actual real reason for the outcome because there is always more then 1 good explanation for things and science has a bad habit of ignoring that important fact of life. Facts not my opinion. If definition is subject to ownership, as you have 'your' definition and I have 'mine' and the philosophers have 'theirs', then all truth as grounded in definition is contradictory. the conclusions you come to are mind blowingly confusing there truly troll level logic
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 18, 2023 19:56:31 GMT
If definition is subject to ownership, as you have 'your' definition and I have 'mine' and the philosophers have 'theirs', then all truth as grounded in definition is contradictory. the conclusions you come to are mind blowingly confusing there truly troll level logic If we own definitions individually and in groups then with the clash of individuals and/or groups comes a clash of definitions (as each as their own definition). This clash is a contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Aug 18, 2023 23:37:39 GMT
Its not my definition it's the definition given by your special oh so loved philosophers that came up with the CONCEPT.Bottom line FACT is that you have never seen one in fact not a single person ever has seen one and just because a person can predict the outcome of an action that in no way means that the reason given by said person is the actual real reason for the outcome because there is always more then 1 good explanation for things and science has a bad habit of ignoring that important fact of life. Facts not my opinion. If definition is subject to ownership, as you have 'your' definition and I have 'mine' and the philosophers have 'theirs', then all truth as grounded in definition is contradictory. No it's not and this is why half of the people here think you're Troll and the other half thank you ate too many paint chips when you stayed over at your grandparents house. (back in the 80s because paint used to have lead in it up until the 70s and most grandparents is houses had paint old enough to still contain lead and Lead causes brain damage but I digress) >>>>>>>disclaimer<<<<<<< I did not get any sleep last night I'm going on about a little over 48 hours without sleep and I'm multitasking right now so my hands are occupied so I'm using voice to text to make this reply and voice to text apparently has it out to get me by skipping words or deciding randomly to use a word that absolutely was not the one that I said but I digress so if I seems to my incoherent today it's a mixture between delirium and my stupid phone. Now back to our feature presentation.. Literally no adult would have come to that conclusion about definitions and that is the least productive least intelligent way to look at definitions that I have ever heard my entire life which continually nudges me into the opinion that you're just a troll making fun of philosophy because I don't see how an adult can be coherent enough to hold down a job and assumably live on their own? (because I'm guessing you live on your own and you don't live with your parents) I'm hoping that's the case at least , but I don't see how you could hold down a job with responsibilities with a mindset like you project yourself to have on this forum?. I mean maybe if you worked at Build-A-Bear that Maybe the kind of place that could tolerate a person with that intelligence level and perspective or at least they would have the enthusiasm to try to implement it to see if it worked you got to give him that much. orrrrrrrrrrrrr, if you're an engineer, actually that would make a lot of sense if you're an engineer cuz those dudes can't get anything right
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 1, 2023 19:13:47 GMT
If definition is subject to ownership, as you have 'your' definition and I have 'mine' and the philosophers have 'theirs', then all truth as grounded in definition is contradictory. No it's not and this is why half of the people here think you're Troll and the other half thank you ate too many paint chips when you stayed over at your grandparents house. (back in the 80s because paint used to have lead in it up until the 70s and most grandparents is houses had paint old enough to still contain lead and Lead causes brain damage but I digress) >>>>>>>disclaimer<<<<<<< I did not get any sleep last night I'm going on about a little over 48 hours without sleep and I'm multitasking right now so my hands are occupied so I'm using voice to text to make this reply and voice to text apparently has it out to get me by skipping words or deciding randomly to use a word that absolutely was not the one that I said but I digress so if I seems to my incoherent today it's a mixture between delirium and my stupid phone. Now back to our feature presentation.. Literally no adult would have come to that conclusion about definitions and that is the least productive least intelligent way to look at definitions that I have ever heard my entire life which continually nudges me into the opinion that you're just a troll making fun of philosophy because I don't see how an adult can be coherent enough to hold down a job and assumably live on their own? (because I'm guessing you live on your own and you don't live with your parents) I'm hoping that's the case at least , but I don't see how you could hold down a job with responsibilities with a mindset like you project yourself to have on this forum?. I mean maybe if you worked at Build-A-Bear that Maybe the kind of place that could tolerate a person with that intelligence level and perspective or at least they would have the enthusiasm to try to implement it to see if it worked you got to give him that much. orrrrrrrrrrrrr, if you're an engineer, actually that would make a lot of sense if you're an engineer cuz those dudes can't get anything right You contradicting me that there are no individually or grouped owned definitions to words only points to further contradictions:
1. You contradict my argument thus resulting in contradictions in interpretations of which you have yours and I have mine. 2. You having your own meaning to right and wrong contradicts the meaning of right/wrong I am stating as I am saying my argument is right and yours is wrong and your argument states I am wrong you are right...these are further contradictions.
You are contradicting yourself by stating definition is not subject to ownership as you own your words and groups of people own theirs.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Sept 5, 2023 1:56:06 GMT
No it's not and this is why half of the people here think you're Troll and the other half thank you ate too many paint chips when you stayed over at your grandparents house. (back in the 80s because paint used to have lead in it up until the 70s and most grandparents is houses had paint old enough to still contain lead and Lead causes brain damage but I digress) >>>>>>>disclaimer<<<<<<< I did not get any sleep last night I'm going on about a little over 48 hours without sleep and I'm multitasking right now so my hands are occupied so I'm using voice to text to make this reply and voice to text apparently has it out to get me by skipping words or deciding randomly to use a word that absolutely was not the one that I said but I digress so if I seems to my incoherent today it's a mixture between delirium and my stupid phone. Now back to our feature presentation.. Literally no adult would have come to that conclusion about definitions and that is the least productive least intelligent way to look at definitions that I have ever heard my entire life which continually nudges me into the opinion that you're just a troll making fun of philosophy because I don't see how an adult can be coherent enough to hold down a job and assumably live on their own? (because I'm guessing you live on your own and you don't live with your parents) I'm hoping that's the case at least , but I don't see how you could hold down a job with responsibilities with a mindset like you project yourself to have on this forum?. I mean maybe if you worked at Build-A-Bear that Maybe the kind of place that could tolerate a person with that intelligence level and perspective or at least they would have the enthusiasm to try to implement it to see if it worked you got to give him that much. orrrrrrrrrrrrr, if you're an engineer, actually that would make a lot of sense if you're an engineer cuz those dudes can't get anything right You contradicting me that there are no individually or grouped owned definitions to words only points to further contradictions:
1. You contradict my argument thus resulting in contradictions in interpretations of which you have yours and I have mine. 2. You having your own meaning to right and wrong contradicts the meaning of right/wrong I am stating as I am saying my argument is right and yours is wrong and your argument states I am wrong you are right...these are further contradictions.
You are contradicting yourself by stating definition is not subject to ownership as you own your words and groups of people own theirs.
You just made up every single one of those like you do every time . why do you troll so hard?
|
|