FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 7:09 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:42 am
I am approaching the above from Eastern Philosophy re Yin and Yang which is a generic principle of reality
without exceptions.
I'm sorry. Are you telling me that this argument of yours has had an unwritten dependency on the competition between two cosmic forces that I don't believe exist? Cosmic forces which your own probability matrix would deny exists?
And you think that you can just insert that now and demand it be taken seriously? This will not happen.
I did not mention any
mystical forces at all.
I stated the Yin-Yang are the generic principles of reality, thus applicable from quantum forces to cosmic forces which can be verified with empirical evidences.
You are indeed VERY ignorant on this principle but not
Niels Bohr - one of the founder of Quantum Physics.
Bohr acknowledged the Principles of Complementariness of the Yin-Yang philosophy helped him to discover and established the Theories of Quantum Mechanics.
He was so appreciative that he included the Yin-Yang symbol in his Coats of Arms.
Since
Niels Bohr did not have a coat-of-arms, he designed one himself around the Tai-Chi (
yin-yang symbol) which he envisioned as a striking traditional representation of the principle of complementarity on which he based his views of the fundamental laws of physics. Also known as the wave-particle duality, this principle stresses that physical fields have properties which are usually attributed either to particles or to waves.
http://www.numericana.com/arms/bohr.htm ... %20physics.
Btw, you cannot deny how useful are the Theories of Quantum Mechanics to humanity at the present.
The above exposed your ignorance.
Not only the above, but in fact you are ignorant of so much knowledge.
I have much knowledge in reserves, the deeper you dig to counter me, I will pull them out one by one to show you are one always a few steps behind.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:42 am
That you gave all sorts of examples to disprove this generic principle of life is due to your ignorance and inability to get to the breath and depth of this knowledge.
Take your religious sermon to the religion sub and talk about it with people who want to talk religion.
It is a fact you are ignorant of lots of knowledge that is already known within humanity database.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:42 am
- Note this example,
If say you take 1000 tons of pure black paint and dump it in into a large hole.
Then you take 10,000,000 tons of pure white paint and dump it in into the same a large hole.
Then mix up the paint thoroughly.
Now what you see is 'pure' white paint.
But you cannot deny the 1000 tons pure black paint in what is observed as "100%" white.
Thus the fact is the mixture is 99.99% white and 0.01% black which reflect the actual state-of-affairs of reality.
You see how there are quantities in that description such x number of tons of paint? That means I can just let this go, I can say fine.
Or I can point to the self defeat built into arguing that there is no such thing as purity and all yins have yang, and then telling me about "1000 tons pure black paint"
Also all you actually have there is ten million tons of white paint adulterated with a thousand tons of not white paint.
To the naked eye it would just be white, to a calibrated scope it would be less than entirely white, to a degree that might be presented in percentage terms, or albedo, but that's just levels of description in action. In no sense would it be any percentage black though, the black paint is gone, the new paint is just slightly off white.
But as this is all measurable stuff in your example, so it can be quantified, and you can have an actual percentage that is meaningful because you have measurable proportions.
So your example fails on many levels, and as such doesn't work to undermine my criticism of your fake numbers and fraudulent probabilities.
Again you are ignorant of the fact.
The fact or state-of-affair of that reality is there is;
1000 tons of pure black paint and
10,000,000 tons of pure white paint.
The percentages are a different perspectives that generate its respective facts which are all true and indisputable upon its respective qualifications.
If I state, 1000 tons of fine iron filings and 10,000,000 tons of fine white powder [say flour].
When mixed what you see is a 'mountain'/heap of white stuff as perceived from a distance.
We can still separate the iron filing out but running through the heap with a very strong magnet, many times.
Now these are facts of the heap as qualified;
- 1. To the naked eye from a distance, we see 'pure' white stuff.
2. To the people who mixed the measured stuff, that heap is
- i. 0.01% black iron filing, 99.99% white powder.
ii. visually it is precisely 0.01% black , 99.99% white .
iii. 1000 tons of fine iron filings and 10,000,000 tons of fine white powder.
3. To the chemist is 0.01% Fe and 99.99% C-O-H
4. To the physicist, it is 0.01% Fe atoms and 99.99% C-O-H atoms.
5. To the Quantum Physicists, the heap can either be comprised of wave or particles relative to the observer's action.
6. To the philosophers who reflect deeper - there is "nothing" at all.
7. There are many other perspectives to that heap with its respective facts.
From the above, from one fact of a heap, there are so many corresponding facts to the same heap with different referents - but they all must [imperative] be qualified to the perspective, framework and context
Thus my point, what is fact is generated from the respective Framework of Knowledge and there can be no fixed referent for each fact.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:42 am
As I had stated, the Yin-Yang principle is generic and universal, there is no exception to it.
But both of your quantities of paint were exceptions to it before you mixed them.
Therefore it will apply in the case of morality.
It is just a question of how to get to it.
You cannot because your analytical skills and philosophical competency is not high enough.
The yin yang principle is pure spiritual bullshit. Nonsense about some female cosmic force that is the reflection of a male cosmic force. If I could be bothered with yet more rounds of this stuff I would make you explain it in your own terms and then use your own "impossibility to be true" argument on it.
This thread is as bad as the other one.
In the above, I have exposed your IGNORANCE and your limited range of knowledge.
Your matter-of-fact dogmatically is a dogmatic matter-of-fart.
You know why you are so desperate to protect and defend you knowledge bubble so dogmatically?
You are a slow learner, if you read my other threads you will understand why but it is more likely, NEVER.