Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 7:35 am
WHY is it in the database, Pete?
Who allowed it into the database and how?
What is the stipulated definition of "God"?
Here is the criterion measure for inclusion:
Is is definitely true (based on the meaning of these words) that there is
an idea that is called "the big bang theory?"
False, there are many ideas about how the big bang occured. It is not definitely true that there is "an" idea of the theory.
Is is definitely true (based on the meaning of these words) that the idea
of "the big bang theory?" is categorized as uncertainly true?
No.
You quibble.
Is is definitely true (based on the meaning of these words) that there is
at least one idea that is called "the big bang theory".
It is definitely true that: "the big bang theory" has been categorized as uncertainly
true on the basis of the meaning of the word: "theory".
That is just not the way it works.
If a sentence is a Truth bearer then it has exactly one Boolean values otherwise a sentence is not a truth bearer.
Copyright 2020 (and prior years) Pete Olcott
False, "this sentence is false" contains two truth values
It just doesn't work that way you are violating the definition of the Boolean type.
You might as well have said that you can bake an angel food cake using only actual house bricks for ingredients.
Actually a cake can be made of bricks; it would be called "an angel food cake made of brick". It would take the form of a cake but be made of brick. A brick is a cake of clay.
Here is the criterion measure for inclusion:
Is is definitely true (based on the meaning of these words) that there is
an idea that is called "the big bang theory?"
False, there are many ideas about how the big bang occured. It is not definitely true that there is "an" idea of the theory.
Is is definitely true (based on the meaning of these words) that the idea
of "the big bang theory?" is categorized as uncertainly true?
No.
You quibble.
Is is definitely true (based on the meaning of these words) that there is
at least one idea that is called "the big bang theory".
It is also definitely true that there are multiple ideas of the big bang theory, thus there is both one and many ideas of the big bang theory. You are left with a paradox.
It is definitely true that: "the big bang theory" has been categorized as uncertainly
true on the basis of the meaning of the word: "theory".
False, a theory in scientific knowledge requires and contains testing thus leading to certain elements of truth. This certainty is the replication of results.
False, "this sentence is false" contains two truth values
It just doesn't work that way you are violating the definition of the Boolean type.
You might as well have said that you can bake an angel food cake using only actual house bricks for ingredients.
Actually a cake can be made of bricks; it would be called "an angel food cake made of brick". It would take the form of a cake but be made of brick. A brick is a cake of clay.
Yes and everyone knows that a brick is a type of angel food. (not so much).
You quibble.
Is is definitely true (based on the meaning of these words) that there is
at least one idea that is called "the big bang theory".
It is also definitely true that there are multiple ideas of the big bang theory, thus there is both one and many ideas of the big bang theory. You are left with a paradox.
It is definitely true that: "the big bang theory" has been categorized as uncertainly
true on the basis of the meaning of the word: "theory".
False, a theory in scientific knowledge requires and contains testing thus leading to certain elements of truth. This certainty is the replication of results.
The red hurts my eyes please stop
I have the blue turned down on my monitor so it is too much strain to try and read the red.
I am not left with any frigging paradox The number of variations of: "the big bang theory" is certainly >= 1.
The problem of induction proves that no empirical knowledge can be totally relied upon because
all empirical knowledge depends on possibly false assumptions.
It just doesn't work that way you are violating the definition of the Boolean type.
You might as well have said that you can bake an angel food cake using only actual house bricks for ingredients.
Actually a cake can be made of bricks; it would be called "an angel food cake made of brick". It would take the form of a cake but be made of brick. A brick is a cake of clay.
Yes and everyone knows that a brick is a type of angel food. (not so much).
Angel food is a type of cake.
Brick is a type of cake.
Angel food cake made if brick is the form of an angel food cake made of brick. This is considering angel food cake takes a form.
You quibble.
Is is definitely true (based on the meaning of these words) that there is
at least one idea that is called "the big bang theory".
It is also definitely true that there are multiple ideas of the big bang theory, thus there is both one and many ideas of the big bang theory. You are left with a paradox.
It is definitely true that: "the big bang theory" has been categorized as uncertainly
true on the basis of the meaning of the word: "theory".
False, a theory in scientific knowledge requires and contains testing thus leading to certain elements of truth. This certainty is the replication of results.
The red hurts my eyes please stop
I have the blue turned down on my monitor so it is too much strain to try and read the red.
I am not left with any frigging paradox The number of variations of: "the big bang theory" is certainly >= 1.
[color=#FF0000[/color]
The problem of induction proves that no empirical knowledge can be totally relied upon because
all empirical knowledge depends on possibly false assumptions.
1. False there are both one and many big bang theories. This is a paradox.
2. All abstractions depend upon assumptions as well. This is considering to assume 1+1=2 requires one to assume countable forms (let's say 2 lines) strictly for what they are.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 5:19 pm
Actually a cake can be made of bricks; it would be called "an angel food cake made of brick". It would take the form of a cake but be made of brick. A brick is a cake of clay.
Yes and everyone knows that a brick is a type of angel food. (not so much).
Angel food is a type of cake.
Brick is a type of cake.
Angel food cake made if brick is the form of an angel food cake made of brick. This is considering angel food cake takes a form.
So you are pretending to not know that organic cannot be made from inoganic?
The red hurts my eyes please stop
I have the blue turned down on my monitor so it is too much strain to try and read the red.
I am not left with any frigging paradox The number of variations of: "the big bang theory" is certainly >= 1.
[color=#FF0000[/color]
The problem of induction proves that no empirical knowledge can be totally relied upon because
all empirical knowledge depends on possibly false assumptions.
1. False there are both one and many big bang theories. This is a paradox.
You know damn well that it is not any form of paradox. Why lie?
The red hurts my eyes please stop
I have the blue turned down on my monitor so it is too much strain to try and read the red.
I am not left with any frigging paradox The number of variations of: "the big bang theory" is certainly >= 1.
[color=#FF0000[/color]
The problem of induction proves that no empirical knowledge can be totally relied upon because
all empirical knowledge depends on possibly false assumptions.
1. False there are both one and many big bang theories. This is a paradox.
You know damn well that it is not any form of paradox. Why lie?
Actually you cannot prove what I know or not know without making an assumption.
One and many is a paradox as one and many necessitate an opposing tension given they are opposites. There are both one and many big bang theories.
1. A cake is a formed lump of material.
2. All organisms are composed of minerals, thus the organic is made of the inorganic.
You are being deceptive. I quit!
Actually I am not. Your theory just makes no sense, that is all. You cannot define reality without ending in contradiction.
I am not trying to define reality that is impossible.
Physical sensations cannot be expressed as abstractions.
I am correctly defining aspects of a model of reality.