|
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 jonbain on Jun 2, 2023 21:39:10 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. The tool we use to comprehend atoms,
you ASSUME is made up ONLY of atoms. Because you assume that tools are physical things like
microscopes and rulers and pencils and such.
But the most vital tool that is used is logic. Now you believe that the mind is made of atoms (brain-theory).
But when we open up the brain, we cannot find anything logical at all. Just wet gooey stuff that stinks.
The only way a ruler can be used in science, is if it has been organized in a logical way.
If we just took the atoms of a piece of metal, and did not arrange them logically, we would not have a ruler that can be used as a tool.
So the primary tool of understanding atoms, is not atoms, but logic.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jun 4, 2023 22:31:25 GMT
We don't observe Adams we observe a computer screen that made us a nice little video game to watch and then tells us that we're looking at Adams but no Adams were seen
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 21, 2023 17:56:08 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. The tool we use to comprehend atoms,
you ASSUME is made up ONLY of atoms. Because you assume that tools are physical things like
microscopes and rulers and pencils and such.
But the most vital tool that is used is logic. Now you believe that the mind is made of atoms (brain-theory).
But when we open up the brain, we cannot find anything logical at all. Just wet gooey stuff that stinks.
The only way a ruler can be used in science, is if it has been organized in a logical way.
If we just took the atoms of a piece of metal, and did not arrange them logically, we would not have a ruler that can be used as a tool.
So the primary tool of understanding atoms, is not atoms, but logic.
Logic is made of boundaries. Atoms are made of boundaries. We are using boundaries to observe boundaries. Logic is also dependent upon "atomic facts" or little pieces of information that act the same way as a particle in the respect that they relate to other particles (truths) to give a greater form (truth). Logic and atoms both require the same nature of particulates in order to work.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 21, 2023 17:59:30 GMT
We don't observe Adams we observe a computer screen that made us a nice little video game to watch and then tells us that we're looking at Adams but no Adams were seen Facepalm...yeah you are a troll. Why? You cannot even spell "atom".
Anyhow there were ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, before the computer screen was invented, that argued for atoms. Lucretius is one. The atom is a form of measurement as it is a localization of space (or matter). If we are using atoms to measure atoms then we are using measurements to measure our measurements.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 22, 2023 9:05:24 GMT
The tool we use to comprehend atoms,
you ASSUME is made up ONLY of atoms. Because you assume that tools are physical things like
microscopes and rulers and pencils and such.
But the most vital tool that is used is logic. Now you believe that the mind is made of atoms (brain-theory).
But when we open up the brain, we cannot find anything logical at all. Just wet gooey stuff that stinks.
The only way a ruler can be used in science, is if it has been organized in a logical way.
If we just took the atoms of a piece of metal, and did not arrange them logically, we would not have a ruler that can be used as a tool.
So the primary tool of understanding atoms, is not atoms, but logic.
Logic is made of boundaries. Atoms are made of boundaries. We are using boundaries to observe boundaries. Logic is also dependent upon "atomic facts" or little pieces of information that act the same way as a particle in the respect that they relate to other particles (truths) to give a greater form (truth). Logic and atoms both require the same nature of particulates in order to work.
You are describing words, not logic. Words are merely the shadows of logic. True logic is better termed: logos.
Logos is a conscious being, it has boundaries, but it defies these boundaries, because it CREATES boundaries,
and it does so from the local human perspective,
but also on the trans-dimensional spiritual and Deist Perspective.
What some have called 'true genius', is more akin to spirit possession,
than to the structure of words, and sentences and even maths and computer algorithms.
The writing of the algorithm is a flow of being, a river of awareness that creates the river-bed, which is the form we see as words and numbers, and algorithms.
Logic is the spirit of true paradoxical mysticism, where honest acknowledgement of one's ignorance is the first most vital step to enlightenment.
It requires absolute honest humbleness of our limits to MAKE tools that take us beyond those limits.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 23, 2023 19:12:56 GMT
Logic is made of boundaries. Atoms are made of boundaries. We are using boundaries to observe boundaries. Logic is also dependent upon "atomic facts" or little pieces of information that act the same way as a particle in the respect that they relate to other particles (truths) to give a greater form (truth). Logic and atoms both require the same nature of particulates in order to work.
You are describing words, not logic. Words are merely the shadows of logic. True logic is better termed: logos.
Logos is a conscious being, it has boundaries, but it defies these boundaries, because it CREATES boundaries,
and it does so from the local human perspective,
but also on the trans-dimensional spiritual and Deist Perspective.
What some have called 'true genius', is more akin to spirit possession,
than to the structure of words, and sentences and even maths and computer algorithms.
The writing of the algorithm is a flow of being, a river of awareness that creates the river-bed, which is the form we see as words and numbers, and algorithms.
Logic is the spirit of true paradoxical mysticism, where honest acknowledgement of one's ignorance is the first most vital step to enlightenment.
It requires absolute honest humbleness of our limits to MAKE tools that take us beyond those limits.
So you are stating words and logic do not share the same nature of boundaries? If true logic goes beyond boundaries then true logic is effectively not a thing (i.e. a boundary) thus is no-thing. If logic is no-thing then anything can go as there are no boundaries at the highest level. If anything can go, as logic is beyond boundaries, then anything can be logical thus leaving us with the irrational as logic means everything and 'everything' has no comparison thus no distinction.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jun 28, 2023 5:24:13 GMT
We don't observe Adams we observe a computer screen that made us a nice little video game to watch and then tells us that we're looking at Adams but no Adams were seen Facepalm...yeah you are a troll. Why? You cannot even spell "atom".
Anyhow there were ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, before the computer screen was invented, that argued for atoms. Lucretius is one. The atom is a form of measurement as it is a localization of space (or matter). If we are using atoms to measure atoms then we are using measurements to measure our measurements.
My phone's auto correct is going to be the death of me. And it's not firstly a form of measurement it is suppose to be the smallest thing that things are made out of that are measured
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 28, 2023 23:34:40 GMT
Facepalm...yeah you are a troll. Why? You cannot even spell "atom".
Anyhow there were ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, before the computer screen was invented, that argued for atoms. Lucretius is one. The atom is a form of measurement as it is a localization of space (or matter). If we are using atoms to measure atoms then we are using measurements to measure our measurements.
My phone's auto correct is going to be the death of me. And it's not firstly a form of measurement it is suppose to be the smallest thing that things are made out of that are measured We make the atom as a distinction from the surrounding fabric of reality thus it is a form of measurement.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jun 29, 2023 2:52:40 GMT
My phone's auto correct is going to be the death of me. And it's not firstly a form of measurement it is suppose to be the smallest thing that things are made out of that are measured We make the atom as a distinction from the surrounding fabric of reality thus it is a form of measurement. No it's what things are supposedly made out of that are then measured
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jun 29, 2023 2:56:12 GMT
And it wasn't invented by philosophers as a means of explaining localized space it was invented as the smallest solid undividable thing so it was considered to be solid not a localized area of space it was literally an undivisible solid thing according to some drunk philosophers sitting by a fireplace getting blitzed off of drinking ether
But semantics aside we still haven't seen one and we still hold to the theory of atomism for hundreds of years even though it was never proven to be a real thing.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 30, 2023 19:08:00 GMT
And it wasn't invented by philosophers as a means of explaining localized space it was invented as the smallest solid undividable thing so it was considered to be solid not a localized area of space it was literally an undivisible solid thing according to some drunk philosophers sitting by a fireplace getting blitzed off of drinking ether But semantics aside we still haven't seen one and we still hold to the theory of atomism for hundreds of years even though it was never proven to be a real thing. If you continually divide a point into further points then paradoxically the point is never truly divided as one is the same as the other.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jul 1, 2023 15:05:06 GMT
And it wasn't invented by philosophers as a means of explaining localized space it was invented as the smallest solid undividable thing so it was considered to be solid not a localized area of space it was literally an undivisible solid thing according to some drunk philosophers sitting by a fireplace getting blitzed off of drinking ether But semantics aside we still haven't seen one and we still hold to the theory of atomism for hundreds of years even though it was never proven to be a real thing. If you continually divide a point into further points then paradoxically the point is never truly divided as one is the same as the other. How is one the same as the other? What other?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 5, 2023 14:51:51 GMT
If you continually divide a point into further points then paradoxically the point is never truly divided as one is the same as the other. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 25, 2023 21:32:22 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.
|
|