Atla wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:31 am
not in the distorted sense that Eodnhoj is talking about. That's obviously NOT what I was talking about so your comment is a strawman.
The sense he's talking about is the progression of language. Left to right. A to B. Premise to conclusion.
Meanwhile you can't deny that all of our languages/concepts are a little screwy. Mathematics and infinity especially.
You can run check these against https://www.wolframalpha.com
screwy.png
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:36 am, edited 2 times in total.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:30 amlast time I check any object at a distance is always a point, up close composed of points, the branching and wave patterns in nature replicate, etc.
Very good, this confirms that you are hallucinating. As humans can't see the subatomic scale (and below, if there's a below) with their eyes.
Besides we didn't find "points" even under the best miscroscopes.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:30 amlast time I check any object at a distance is always a point, up close composed of points, the branching and wave patterns in nature replicate, etc.
Very good, this confirms that you are hallucinating. As humans can't see the subatomic scale (and below, if there's a below) with their eyes.
Besides we didn't find "points" even under the best miscroscopes.
Not really, people say the stars looks like points of light, an object at a distance becomes a point...etc.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:30 amlast time I check any object at a distance is always a point, up close composed of points, the branching and wave patterns in nature replicate, etc.
Very good, this confirms that you are hallucinating. As humans can't see the subatomic scale (and below, if there's a below) with their eyes.
Besides we didn't find "points" even under the best miscroscopes.
Not really, people say the stars looks like points of light, an object at a distance becomes a point...etc.
The point is a form.
That's a figure of speech. By point they mean that it's the smallest light they can see. Has nothing to do with what you wrote so far.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:34 am
It was EXPERIMENTALLY proven that progression is a contradiction?
EXPERIENCE (a temporal-phenomenon) disproved time.
Of course it was, the world is timeless.
Prove it.
Not only is time relative but every experiment ever carried out shows that some quantum effects simply ignore it.
You are 100 years behind, not my fault.
Atla wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:36 am
Very good, this confirms that you are hallucinating. As humans can't see the subatomic scale (and below, if there's a below) with their eyes.
Besides we didn't find "points" even under the best miscroscopes.
Not really, people say the stars looks like points of light, an object at a distance becomes a point...etc.
The point is a form.
That's a figure of speech. By point they mean that it's the smallest light they can see. Has nothing to do with what you wrote so far.
Not really, same form. A light in the night sky at a distance takes the same form as a point.
An object measured against something 10n× its size takes the form of a point.
Atla wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:37 am
Of course it was, the world is timeless.
Prove it.
Not only is time relative but every experiment ever carried out shows that some quantum effects simply ignore it.
You are 100 years behind, not my fault.
Time exists then as a subjective state. It is strictly the relation of parts.
Second "some" quantum effects, not "all", necessitates it.
Please try harder with the trolling, you are slacking.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:38 am
Prove it.
Not only is time relative but every experiment ever carried out shows that some quantum effects simply ignore it.
You are 100 years behind, not my fault.
Time exists then as a subjective state. It is strictly the relation of parts.
Second "some" quantum effects, not "all", necessitates it.
Please try harder with the trolling, you are slacking.
That's the other sense, which can be seen as real.
Come back when you can at least differentiate between the two.
Atla wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:44 am
That's a figure of speech. By point they mean that it's the smallest light they can see. Has nothing to do with what you wrote so far.
Not really, same form. A light in the night sky at a distance takes the same form as a point.
An object measured against something 10n× its size takes the form of a point.
Besides a point has no extension, so what you see and call a point, has nothing to do with the concept of a point.
Actually all points expand into a phenomena up a change of context. These phenomena are composed of further points (considering what composes the phenomena is relatively small), thus all points extend to further points.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:47 am
Not really, same form. A light in the night sky at a distance takes the same form as a point.
An object measured against something 10n× its size takes the form of a point.
Besides a point has no extension, so what you see and call a point, has nothing to do with the concept of a point.
Actually all points expand into a phenomena up a change of context. These phenomena are composed of further points (considering what composes the phenomena is relatively small), thus all points extend to further points.
Actually n times zero is still zero, so a point can't extend.
