The Paradox of Observation

[Age]

Okay, so 'you' have your OWN, individual, definition here, and are NOT USING a SHARED and AGREED UPON dictionary definition.

My response ...to the meaning/definition of the word 'paradox'

No word can define what seeks to define words.

Are 'you' ABSOLUTELY SURE and POSITIVE of 'this CLAIM' of 'yours' here?

Do NOT the words 'you', 'humans', and, 'beings' define 'that', what seeks to define words, to 'you'?

And, either way, 'this' was NEVER brought up in my reply of what 'you' were SAYING and CLAIMING anyway.

Or, every word defines what seeks to define words.

WHO CARES, and does 'it' even matter?

I was just POINTING OUT and SHOWING, to "others", that 'you', the one here known as "dontaskme" HAVE and USE 'your' OWN individual and personal definition for A 'word' here, and thus are NOT USING the SHARED and AGREED UPON dictionary definition.

And that was about all.

Q: What seeks?

'you', human beings, FOR ONE.

A: No word comes to mind, or, every word comes to mind.

LOL

WHEN, and IF, 'you' EVER come to SEE and REALIZE what the word 'Mind' MEANS, and REFERS TO, EXACTLY, then 'you', ALSO, WILL SEE just how FUNNY a LOT of what 'you' have been SAYING and CLAIMING here REALLY IS.

[Dontaskme]

WHEN, and IF, 'you' EVER come to SEE and REALIZE what the word 'Mind' MEANS, and REFERS TO, EXACTLY, then 'you', ALSO, WILL SEE just how FUNNY a LOT of what 'you' have been SAYING and CLAIMING here REALLY IS.

No word can define mind...or, every word defines mind.

[Age]

WHEN, and IF, 'you' EVER come to SEE and REALIZE what the word 'Mind' MEANS, and REFERS TO, EXACTLY, then 'you', ALSO, WILL SEE just how FUNNY a LOT of what 'you' have been SAYING and CLAIMING here REALLY IS.

No word can define mind...or, every word defines mind.

LOL Okay. If 'this' is WHAT the one known as "dontaskme" here BELIEVES IS TRUE, then 'this' MUST BE TRUE, TO 'them' anyway.

[Dontaskme]

No one is observing. Implies there is only observing, one without a second, and is the paradox of this immediate never-not-observing.

[popeye1945]

No one is observing. Implies there is only observing, one without a second, and is the paradox of this immediate never-not-observing.

No, it is a bit of nonsense.

[Eodnhoj7]

I SAID 'PROVED' above here. And, what I MEAN by 'PROVED' in the context that I wrote 'PROVED' above here is that 'you', "eodhnoj7", have SHOWN, without any doubt at all, to the 'readers' here that 'you' ARE 'responding' but NOT actually ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION/S being posed and ASKED TO 'you'.

And what is your proof?

AS JUST EXPLAINED, 'your' OWN WORDS, above here.

How can you speak for others if we do not all share the same perspective considering the subjective nature of observation?

But WHO is CLAIMING that the 'we' does NOT share the SAME PERSPECTIVE?

in other words, are 'we' CLAIMING 'this', or just 'you' here?

If we do not share the sameness of perspective then there is no complete unity.

[Age]

And what is your proof?

AS JUST EXPLAINED, 'your' OWN WORDS, above here.

How can you speak for others if we do not all share the same perspective considering the subjective nature of observation?

But WHO is CLAIMING that the 'we' does NOT share the SAME PERSPECTIVE?

in other words, are 'we' CLAIMING 'this', or just 'you' here?

If we do not share the sameness of perspective then there is no complete unity.

Are you REALLY Truly INCAPABLE of ANSWERING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed and ASKED to you?

I ASKED you WHO is CLAIMING that 'we' do NOT share the same perspective. OBVIOUSLY I have NEVER CLAIMED 'this' but now you are ASKING ABOUT 'IF we do NOT share the sameness of perspective'. Which is Truly ABSURD considering the fact that there is absolutely NO one, that I know of anyway, who is claiming such a 'thing' here.

[Eodnhoj7]

But WHO is CLAIMING that the 'we' does NOT share the SAME PERSPECTIVE?

in other words, are 'we' CLAIMING 'this', or just 'you' here?

If we do not share the sameness of perspective then there is no complete unity.

Are you REALLY Truly INCAPABLE of ANSWERING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed and ASKED to you?

I ASKED you WHO is CLAIMING that 'we' do NOT share the same perspective. OBVIOUSLY I have NEVER CLAIMED 'this' but now you are ASKING ABOUT 'IF we do NOT share the sameness of perspective'. Which is Truly ABSURD considering the fact that there is absolutely NO one, that I know of anyway, who is claiming such a 'thing' here.

1. If I hold one perspective different from you and your perspective is different then mine then we do not share the same perspective.

[Atla]

The more something is observed the more complex it becomes.

Physics disagrees with you, observation may be related to forcing particle behaviour, but complexity is unaffected.

[Age]

If we do not share the sameness of perspective then there is no complete unity.

Are you REALLY Truly INCAPABLE of ANSWERING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed and ASKED to you?

I ASKED you WHO is CLAIMING that 'we' do NOT share the same perspective. OBVIOUSLY I have NEVER CLAIMED 'this' but now you are ASKING ABOUT 'IF we do NOT share the sameness of perspective'. Which is Truly ABSURD considering the fact that there is absolutely NO one, that I know of anyway, who is claiming such a 'thing' here.

1. If I hold one perspective different from you and your perspective is different then mine then we do not share the same perspective.

IN regards to 'what', EXACTLY?

Or, are 'you' here 'TRYING TO' CLAIM that NOT sharing the SAME perspective in regards to just one 'thing' MEANS that 'we' do NOT share the SAME perspective in regards to ALL 'things' or Everything?

[popeye1945]

The more something is observed the more complex it becomes. The more complex it becomes, the less sense it makes because not all of it can be sensed. The deeper something is sensed, the less it is sensed.

It is called our intellectual limitations. AI may broaden our intellectual realm. I do not believe, however, that there is any danger of running out of mysteries.

[Eodnhoj7]

The more something is observed the more complex it becomes. The more complex it becomes, the less sense it makes because not all of it can be sensed. The deeper something is sensed, the less it is sensed.

It is called our intellectual limitations. AI may broaden our intellectual realm. I do not believe, however, that there is any danger of running out of mysteries.

The unknown is the universal constant that is but a mirror of imagination.

I am not sure AI may broaden our intellectual realm as much of it 'giving the impression' of broadening our intellectual realm.

[popeye1945]

The more something is observed the more complex it becomes. The more complex it becomes, the less sense it makes because not all of it can be sensed. The deeper something is sensed, the less it is sensed.

It is called our intellectual limitations. AI may broaden our intellectual realm. I do not believe, however, that there is any danger of running out of mysteries.

The unknown is the universal constant that is but a mirror of imagination.

I am not sure AI may broaden our intellectual realm as much as it 'gives the impression of broadening our intellectual realm.

You may be right, it's a wait-and-see proposition.