Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:47 pm

DPMartin wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:23 pm this is a generation that has been taught by Disney and the like that they should dream, and they are entitled access to the fulfillment thereof. heck they are convinced that because they dreamed it, it must be good.

Boy, is that ever true!

thing is if you what socialism there are counties that proport to live by such, why don't they go there?

Because those places are all hellholes. That's what Socialism creates. But the next Socialists will always tell you, "That wasn't real Socialism."

Yes, yes it was.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:53 pmDisagreement is cheap. In fact, my hypothesis for why you disagree is the same as it always was - you don't understand why my words are true.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:53 pmIt's not about aesthetics. Isomorphisms are not "aesthetic" they are mathematical equivalences.

They are equivalent despite your disagreement.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:00 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:58 pm Gravity is not a theory.

Nobody is going to stop you from believing that.

But you have to concede to theism the moment you suspend your skepticism.

That is, only IF you care about consistency.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:05 pm So what makes them equivalent?

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:08 pm It won't surprise you that I disagree. Clearly your use of 'theism' doesn't imply the same belief in a God that my use of 'theism' does.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:52 pmAnd?

Gravity is not a theory.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:40 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:48 pm The plank length is 1.6 x 10-35 meters. So the diameter of the universe is 93*10^9*3*10^8*/1.6*10^-35~5*10^61 PL.

That's the size of the observable universe.

I asked you about the size of the universe.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:17 pm We don't know.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:20 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:17 pm We don't know.

SO then what do you fill in for "Y" ?!?!

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 1:16 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:29 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:14 pm We have different ideas about what a theory is. In my view gravity is not a theory. It is not 99% probable that an apple will fall; on planet Earth, if you drop an apple, it will 100% fall. Something is making that apple fall, and whatever that something is, we call gravity. So in my view, gravity is not probable, it is absolutely certain.

But is the apple falling? OR is the sub-atomic binary makeup of reality - where the apple is about to appear - slightly below its original position - NOW composed of what an apple actually is - that apple.

The atoms are constraint and have relations with each other in the case of solid objects. It can be shown that 6 variables are enough to describe the motion of a solid object. The position of each atom then can be obtained with respect to these variables through the constriants.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:36 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:20 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:17 pm We don't know.

SO then what do you fill in for "Y" ?!?!

It is bigger than that number for sure. That is the only data that we have. There is not any reason why it could not be infinite. So it could be infinite too.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:37 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 1:16 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:29 pm

But is the apple falling? OR is the sub-atomic binary makeup of reality - where the apple is about to appear - slightly below its original position - NOW composed of what an apple actually is - that apple.

The atoms are constraint and have relations with each other in the case of solid objects. It can be shown that 6 variables are enough to describe the motion of a solid object. The position of each atom then can be obtained with respect to these variables through the constriants.

I wasn't talking about 'atoms'

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:38 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:36 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:20 pm
SO then what do you fill in for "Y" ?!?!

It is bigger than that number for sure. That is the only data that we have. There is not any reason why it could not be infinite. So it could be infinite too.

..or it could all be bollocks, and the Solar system is the equivalent of the 13th floor.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:39 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:37 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 1:16 pm
The atoms are constraint and have relations with each other in the case of solid objects. It can be shown that 6 variables are enough to describe the motion of a solid object. The position of each atom then can be obtained with respect to these variables through the constriants.

I wasn't talking about 'atoms'

What are the sub-atomic binaries?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:58 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:39 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:37 pm

I wasn't talking about 'atoms'

What are the sub-atomic binaries?

The binary switching of events that make up what we perceive as atoms. (..and then apples)