|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 13, 2021 16:38:28 GMT
I don't think so.
|
|
sai123
Full Member
Lifelong learner
Posts: 118
Likes: 86
Country: India
Region: Andhra pradesh
Ancestry: Globalist
Politics: Apolitical
Religion: Agnostic
Age: 18
Philosophy: Analytical
|
Post by sai123 on May 2, 2021 19:20:02 GMT
Exactly we dont know because our universe is dynamic and sometimes it doesn't add up and go hand in hand with rational thought
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 3, 2021 6:05:26 GMT
Exactly we dont know because our universe is dynamic and sometimes it doesn't add up and go hand in hand with rational thought Do agree with you! Even at the beginning of XX century physicists knew that all the substances in Cosmos are collapsing or waving, and there was no stable and non-collapsing object. (Yes, of course, some doubted that there were no stable object, but it is hard to discover them even know, because - my own view - that our biology or physiology don't let it be completed.) So, for sure, we can be certain about only those processes which functions happen predictable regularly. If a function x is continuous we can only guess whether or not in the real world it is continuous, and we can calculate it disregarding /neglecting/ about certain points, but who knows are these gaps is another function? And what if all the blanks in functions are also functions, and those functions can lead us to some changes we never know about it? It's true that science idealizes the reality, while, I guess, our daily experience shows the different picture. For instance, for long I've been living in this world, but I've learned that there are no ideal things. - And I am sure that exactly this inner feeling tells us to doubt the science.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 4, 2021 20:24:57 GMT
Exactly we dont know because our universe is dynamic and sometimes it doesn't add up and go hand in hand with rational thought Do agree with you! Even at the beginning of XX century physicists knew that all the substances in Cosmos are collapsing or waving, and there was no stable and non-collapsing object. (Yes, of course, some doubted that there were no stable object, but it is hard to discover them even know, because - my own view - that our biology or physiology don't let it be completed.) So, for sure, we can be certain about only those processes which functions happen predictable regularly. If a function x is continuous we can only guess whether or not in the real world it is continuous, and we can calculate it disregarding /neglecting/ about certain points, but who knows are these gaps is another function? And what if all the blanks in functions are also functions, and those functions can lead us to some changes we never know about it? It's true that science idealizes the reality, while, I guess, our daily experience shows the different picture. For instance, for long I've been living in this world, but I've learned that there are no ideal things. - And I am sure that exactly this inner feeling tells us to doubt the science. We know there are constants because of replicating forms. The form of the "branch" (Y) can be seen in veins, streams, rivers, lightning, capillaries, trees, plants, antlers, etc. Reality is replicating patterns as replicating forms.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 18, 2021 14:30:21 GMT
Do agree with you! Even at the beginning of XX century physicists knew that all the substances in Cosmos are collapsing or waving, and there was no stable and non-collapsing object. (Yes, of course, some doubted that there were no stable object, but it is hard to discover them even know, because - my own view - that our biology or physiology don't let it be completed.) So, for sure, we can be certain about only those processes which functions happen predictable regularly. If a function x is continuous we can only guess whether or not in the real world it is continuous, and we can calculate it disregarding /neglecting/ about certain points, but who knows are these gaps is another function? And what if all the blanks in functions are also functions, and those functions can lead us to some changes we never know about it? It's true that science idealizes the reality, while, I guess, our daily experience shows the different picture. For instance, for long I've been living in this world, but I've learned that there are no ideal things. - And I am sure that exactly this inner feeling tells us to doubt the science. We know there are constants because of replicating forms. The form of the "branch" (Y) can be seen in veins, streams, rivers, lightning, capillaries, trees, plants, antlers, etc. Reality is replicating patterns as replicatingforms.s Could be. At the same time we have this: THE THE How many words are written above?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 18, 2021 16:27:31 GMT
We know there are constants because of replicating forms. The form of the "branch" (Y) can be seen in veins, streams, rivers, lightning, capillaries, trees, plants, antlers, etc. Reality is replicating patterns as replicatingforms.s Could be. At the same time we have this: THE THE How many words are written above? One and Two. One word repeated twice.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 18, 2021 19:33:22 GMT
Could be. At the same time we have this: THE THE How many words are written above? One and Two. One word repeated twice. Am I correct, you meant "One and Two", so - there are three, right? Why I did ask about it? It's because the process of repeating doesn't necessary mean, that the origin and its copy, or a prototype and the model of it, etc are not tied with each other necessary. We still can think that - as in that example of C. S. Pierce - that there are two symbols of one type, but it's also that there might be two different words. We can think that the former or the latter words copying its opposite one, while it doesn't really mean that. The most general question must be - which kind of the necessity there has to be to be sure that the process of repeating is directly this process? Or: what chains are tied up two things which are considered to be repeated things?
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 18, 2021 19:48:05 GMT
As you wish, my friend. But you're warned: without science, the existence is much more harder.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 18, 2021 19:57:24 GMT
One and Two. One word repeated twice. Am I correct, you meant "One and Two", so - there are three, right? Why I did ask about it? It's because the process of repeating doesn't necessary mean, that the origin and its copy, or a prototype and the model of it, etc are not tied with each other necessary. We still can think that - as in that example of C. S. Pierce - that there are two symbols of one type, but it's also that there might be two different words. We can think that the former or the latter words copying its opposite one, while it doesn't really mean that. The most general question must be - which kind of the necessity there has to be to be sure that the process of repeating is directly this process? Or: what chains are tied up two things which are considered to be repeated things? There is one word and it is repeated twice. The repetition of a phenomenon necessitates it as tied together through common form(s) which underlie them. Having a horse and another horse necessitates common underlying forms which tie them together (ie legs, heads, etc.), yet the horses may be in different times and places and of different types. This repetition of form is the same phenomenon existing in multiple times and places where one thing is superpositioned across many contexts. One phenomenon exists through many. In the example of "the the", there is one "the" existing in multiple places. While the different contexts in which the phenomenom exist may result in the phenomena as having different meanings, these different meanings stem from a common root. Variation is one thing repeated in new forms, with common underlying forms tying the phenomena together as one thing in multiple states.
|
|