Or are you going to offer me nothing by way of proof that nothing means something?
Well, that bit is just him saying that spacetime is, in effect, analogue, rather than digitised.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 7:31 pm"you are bound to conclude that Einstein did not believe that space is emptiness."
Best you can say is that he mebbe thought it possessed a nature: "...this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time."
Off the top of my head, I can't think of a specific reference, but there are many instances where he made his opposition to 'spooky action at a distance' clear. A big part of his motivation to attribute gravity to a substantial 'spacetime' is that it is 'localised', i.e. there is a physical connection between two gravitationally attracted objects, which is missing in Newtonian mechanics.
Which was my point.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 7:31 pmAs for the insinuation I haven't read Einstein's work... ( ︶︿︶)_╭∩╮
Didn't claim to understand it perfectly (*I may, in fact, be dead wrong on a nice chunk of what I think I understand), but I've read what Einstein published, and it seems to me a great many of the ideas attributed to him aren't actually his but are **popularizations of his thinkin'.
Sorry you took it that way
Well yeah, I don't remember reading that anywhere in Einstein.
Because nothing is a state of affair that there is no thing. By thing, I mean object, time, space, etc.
Right. Nothing is "no thing." It's not a thing. Just like a zero is the absence of a number, not just another number.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:36 pmBecause nothing is a state of affair that there is no thing. By thing, I mean object, time, space, etc.
You need to try it yourself to imagine nothing. It is possible.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:59 pmRight. Nothing is "no thing." It's not a thing. Just like a zero is the absence of a number, not just another number.
But what you have done is shown I am correct.
In what, then, was I "not correct," as you said above?
So the willie and the fanny are evil stuff? ( I tried the straightforward nomenclature but got stars)Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 7:29 pmThen I humbly submit that the Scandinavian translation you're using is wrong. To show that, here is original Hebrew upon which the manuscripts of all our translations, both English and Scandanavian, depends.
The original Hebrew reads:
but you must not
Adverb - Negative particle
Strong's Hebrew 3808: Not, no
Verb - Qal - Imperfect - second person masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 398: To eat
Preposition | third person masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 4480: A part of, from, out of
Conjunctive waw, Preposition-m | Noun - masculine singular construct
Strong's Hebrew 6086: Tree, trees, wood
of the knowledge
Article | Noun - feminine singular construct
Strong's Hebrew 1847: Knowledge
Noun - masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 2896: Pleasant, agreeable, good
Conjunctive waw | Adjective - masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 7451: Bad, evil
So you see that the phrase "of good and evil" is in the original. If any translation leaves it out, that's just not correct.
But that is logically so. The penis and the vagina are evil. At least, exposed.
Why are you not stating:- Because it places no prohibition on knowledge of any kind, except for TWO kinds...the knowledge of good AND of evil?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 7:18 pmBecause it places no prohibition on knowledge of any kind, except for one kind...the knowledge of evil.
The idea that God has something against people having other kinds of knowledge is simply wrong.
When I was talking of 'space' I was meaning the entire space of the universe and its contents. Does that change your mind in any way?henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 5:24 pmThis makes no sense to me. Space is emptiness, it has no substance in itself. Stuff exists in space. Stuff may be digital, but space isn't. Hell, it's not even analog, as I said it was up-thread (that was me fallin' prey to a figure of speech).attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 5:37 amSpace must be binary\digital at its most infinitesimally finite scale - a point where there is either an event or there isn't.
Space is nothing, no-thing.
I explained earlier, but in a message to someone else. Apparently, you didn't see that message, so I'm reprise briefly, for your convenience.
There is nothing wrong in our discourse to simply 'knock off' the end bit 'of good and evil' - to save typing
You have been where, and done what, exactly?Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 12:20 pmRemember the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden. From the tree of knowledge. That is the story that makes most sense to me in the bible. As long as it is “exploring the world”, thats all very well, but in the area where the guys were digging, there are thoughts that you definitely do not want to find. Been there, done that.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:39 pmNot a "reaction," A. Just a "question." I genuinely cannot see what you're fearing there.
Just as we explore new lands by pushing the boundaries of our geography, so too we learn by pushing the boundaries of our current knowledge. If we ever stop asking questions, fearing something is simply "unfathomable," then we're like sailors who won't go sailing for fear of falling off the edge of the globe. Then learning ends.
Sail on, say I.
Users browsing this forum: Skepdick and 15 guests