The World is a Verb (something approaching "scientific/mathematical" proof)

[LMNO]

Seems more like he's trying to force a physical representation of division onto a theoretical idea.

Yeah, I suppose it depends on how you look at it.

I went from "I can imagine a line of infinite points", and then 'concluded', "I can divide a physical line infinitely."


Also, I'm not sure of TSo's gender.

[Cain]

Seems more like he's trying to force a physical representation of division onto a theoretical idea.

Yeah, I suppose it depends on how you look at it.

I went from "I can imagine a line of infinite points", and then 'concluded', "I can divide a physical line infinitely."


Also, I'm not sure of TSo's gender.

He's being outlandish about it.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

Indeed.  Its like Derrida for Retards or something.  Actually analyzing language and discourse in the role of creating (mis)perceptions of reality is too much like hard work...just declare things verbs (and throw in some bad maths) and everyone can bask in your intellectual genius

You think maths is intellectual?

@Rev. Thwack

I'd still argue that the maths isn't flawed so much as ridiculous to the point of being wholly inconclusive, and also (perhaps another time) that our logic isn't as all encompassing and correct as it may appear (the Copenhagen thingumy if you're familiar with quantum physics).  But in general Yes.

As an answer to your second question, probably a snowball (assuming it was loosely packed) as quarks do wierd shit with entanglement and I might end up being eaten by a shark or summint (insert appropriately ridiculous annoying comment here).  And cars hurt.

Now that we've all done some Thinking for Ourself Schmuckery can we have big group hug?

The reality of an object is not defined by the division of the whole by its parts, but instead by the sum of its parts and their interaction together to complete and make up the whole.

And thats not entirely true but I'll only discuss that if you wish it to be discussed.

[Rev. Thwack]

The reality of an object is not defined by the division of the whole by its parts, but instead by the sum of its parts and their interaction together to complete and make up the whole.

And thats not entirely true but I'll only discuss that if you wish it to be discussed.

Discuss away, as I was just using that as a counterpoint to your

noun described  being created from nothing  x an infinite amount of being.

and your using fetish for dividing things like crazy until you get to bits so tiny you feel just fine leaving them out altogether as a way to support it.

[LMNO]

That's sort of where I was going.

A quark and a gluon are discreet bits of stuff.  The fact that they don't seem to be able to be broken down any further, there doesn't seem to be a need to keep dividing.


Also, seeing as how the relationship of mass and energy seems to go batshit insane, some scientists have speculated that you really can't have a particle smaller that 10^-33 cm.

Which, if you're keeping score, is 0.000000000000000000000000000000001 cm.

And, if you're paying attention, is not zero.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

The reality of an object is not defined by the division of the whole by its parts, but instead by the sum of its parts and their interaction together to complete and make up the whole.

And thats not entirely true but I'll only discuss that if you wish it to be discussed.

Discuss away, as I was just using that as a counterpoint to your

noun described  being created from nothing  x an infinite amount of being.

and your using fetish for dividing things like crazy until you get to bits so tiny you feel just fine leaving them out altogether as a way to support it.

Well you've stated that an object and its qualities exist of its own accord, not really true (and I suppose this will be where people proclomations that reality is subjective comes in blah blah...)

I'll use a quoted example, because to write my own would probably be recognised fairly quickly as plagiarism around these parts, and I don't feel comfortable passing off someone else's ideas as my no matter how strongly i agree with them:

Let us consider a piece of cheese.  We say that this has certain qualities, shape, structure, color, solidity, wieght, taste, smell, consistency and the rest; but investigation has shown that this is illusory.  Where are these qualities?  Not in the cheese, for different observers give quite different accounts of it.  Not in ourselves, for we do not percieve them in the abscence of the cheese...

What then are these qualities of which we are so sure?  They would not exist without our brains; they would not exist without the cheese.  They are the results of the union, that is of the Yoga, of the seer and the seen, of subject and object...

Its Uncle Al (as people here seem to call him, and if Bob is to be believed).

This idea has recently been given more credence by advances in quantum physics, that is the general nature of an atom (which is something entirely wierder than everything ever), and seemingly, how without observation an atom exists entirely as a probability, thus any arguments involving matter that disregard consciousness are inherently flawed... I think.

Just thoughts mind, I don't really want to say anything I might be held to at a later date :/

x

Joanne

[Cramulus]

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=10125.0

[Cain]

Indeed.  Its like Derrida for Retards or something.  Actually analyzing language and discourse in the role of creating (mis)perceptions of reality is too much like hard work...just declare things verbs (and throw in some bad maths) and everyone can bask in your intellectual genius

You think maths is intellectual?

You think its not?

Cain,
thinks you may not understand maths very much.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

Indeed.  Its like Derrida for Retards or something.  Actually analyzing language and discourse in the role of creating (mis)perceptions of reality is too much like hard work...just declare things verbs (and throw in some bad maths) and everyone can bask in your intellectual genius

You think maths is intellectual?

You think its not?

Cain,
thinks you may not understand maths very much.

I think I'm allowed a point of view.  Is a spanner intellectual?

[Rev. Thwack]

The reality of an object is not defined by the division of the whole by its parts, but instead by the sum of its parts and their interaction together to complete and make up the whole.

And thats not entirely true but I'll only discuss that if you wish it to be discussed.

Discuss away, as I was just using that as a counterpoint to your

noun described  being created from nothing  x an infinite amount of being.

and your using fetish for dividing things like crazy until you get to bits so tiny you feel just fine leaving them out altogether as a way to support it.

Well you've stated that an object and its qualities exist of its own accord, not really true (and I suppose this will be where people proclomations that reality is subjective comes in blah blah...)

No, I stated that we define what an object is due to what its components are and how they respond to each other. I'm not trying to say that a car is a car because it's a car, but that a car is a car because it contains everything we attribute to being required by a car. It's my counterpoint to your statement that a car is really nothing because we can find really tiny bits of it to talk about that are almost too small to measure. Even trying to go as far as saying that the car is only a car in my reality is off. Yes, there are aspects of the car that we will experience differently due to the way that our brains process and handle information, but those are mostly the superficial things such as color and smell, while the majority of the concrete aspects of the car (size, shape, it's ability to crush you like a bug) remained unchanged due to the fact that it does have characteristics that are not dependent upon observation by an outside force.

Reality isn't subjective.... parts of reality are subjective, parts are non-subjective, and parts are ignored by many.

[LMNO]

Oh... You went to AC and Quantum in the same post!

Let us consider a piece of cheese.  We say that this has certain qualities, shape, structure, color, solidity, wieght, taste, smell, consistency and the rest; but investigation has shown that this is illusory.  Where are these qualities?  Not in the cheese, for different observers give quite different accounts of it.  Not in ourselves, for we do not percieve them in the abscence of the cheese...

There seems to be confusion between the perception of the cheese versus the cheese itself.  All the Opium Fiend seems to be saying is that there is an additional process in our heads that affect how we perceive the cheese.  The bit you quoted continues:

In reality the cheese is nothing but a series of electric charges. Even the most fundamental quality of all, mass, has been found not to exist.

Well, he sort of gets that bit wrong, like most non-scientists trying to explain Relativity.  But still, one must keep in mind that this was from a lecture on basic Yoga; the purpose of which was to teach how to alter your reality filters (Bars in your Black Iron Prison).

But please note that Al said "The cheese is a series of electric charges".  You can nit-pick that all you want, but the core of the statement is that "something exists outside of yourself that can be measured".




As for the Schrodinger/Heisenberg routine, the atom does not exist as a "probability".  We simply cannot measure it in a well-defined manner, due to the nature of our measurements.

[Rev. Thwack]

Indeed.  Its like Derrida for Retards or something.  Actually analyzing language and discourse in the role of creating (mis)perceptions of reality is too much like hard work...just declare things verbs (and throw in some bad maths) and everyone can bask in your intellectual genius

You think maths is intellectual?

You think its not?

Cain,
thinks you may not understand maths very much.

I think I'm allowed a point of view.  Is a spanner intellectual?

The thought that went into the initial design and creation, yes.
The thought that went into the metallurgy and tooling, yes.
The thought that went into picking it up to hit someone in the head with, no.

[Cain]

Indeed.  Its like Derrida for Retards or something.  Actually analyzing language and discourse in the role of creating (mis)perceptions of reality is too much like hard work...just declare things verbs (and throw in some bad maths) and everyone can bask in your intellectual genius

You think maths is intellectual?

You think its not?

Cain,
thinks you may not understand maths very much.

I think I'm allowed a point of view.  Is a spanner intellectual?

Sure, and I'm allowed to make fun of it.  No, but its certainly a tool, like something else in this thread.

Oh... You went to AC and Quantum in the same post!

[LMNO]

Incidentally, in case you were gonna go

The Schrödinger field pattern in position space determines where a detection event is likely to be found, and its pattern in wavelength space determines the momentum we associate with the object causing the event.

If the events are localized in a small region, the wave pattern will be localized but consequently it will contain many elementary waves – its momentum will not be well-defined.

Conversely, if the momentum detector clicks only for a narrow range of momentum values, the wavelength is well-defined, and the wave pattern must extend over many cycles – its location in space is not well-defined.

You can have waves with well-defined position or well-defined momentum, but not both at once. This is the true meaning of the uncertainty relation first enunciated in 1927 by Heisenberg.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

Incidentally, in case you were gonna go

The Schrödinger field pattern in position space determines where a detection event is likely to be found, and its pattern in wavelength space determines the momentum we associate with the object causing the event.

If the events are localized in a small region, the wave pattern will be localized but consequently it will contain many elementary waves – its momentum will not be well-defined.

Conversely, if the momentum detector clicks only for a narrow range of momentum values, the wavelength is well-defined, and the wave pattern must extend over many cycles – its location in space is not well-defined.

You can have waves with well-defined position or well-defined momentum, but not both at once. This is the true meaning of the uncertainty relation first enunciated in 1927 by Heisenberg.

I take it you understand/have knowledge of the basic experiment showing an atoms paradoxical nature?

EDIT:  may as well reply to the various other people as well so I don't feel rude:

@Cain:  yes I am a tool.  Lets move on...  unless you were in fact agreeing with me that maths is a tool (thats what the metaphor was supposed to represent...) much like the spanner, in that its creation required much thought and reasoning, but now any twat can pick it up and do whatever heshe likes with it.

@Rev Thwack:  I'm glad that has been clarified, though I still disagree that any of reality is objective.  If I have no sense of touch what does a car feel like?  If I have no sense of taste what does chocolate taste like?  You see?  I hope you have another argument to make me feel silly for asking those questions though, you seem to be quite good at it after all...