Whatever steps you feel like! As long as you take 3 billion, then 4 billion of them.
Well, you go do the experiment - and when you come back, tell me if your results agree with Pythagoras.
7 billion steps await you. Hurry up!
Whatever steps you feel like! As long as you take 3 billion, then 4 billion of them.
Well, you go do the experiment - and when you come back, tell me if your results agree with Pythagoras.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:03 amWhatever steps you feel like! As long as you take 3 billion, then 4 billion of them.
What if it is a non finite number?
Seriously though, the step as quantified observes all quantities as having an problem of accurately observing reality.Well, you go do the experiment - and when you come back, tell me if your results agree with Pythagoras.
7 billion steps await you. Hurry up!
False, standard, the experiment cannot be recorded thus your theory is null as it is not quantifying anything.
Why? Are you lazy or what?
That is my point, no matter what number you choose, eventually not only does it become unprovable by it's own standard, but where it is possible the experiment only proves that "1" is a bell curve made of various other 1's and the foundations of measurement are premised on an assumed indeterminate state.
Silly Platonist. Playing hide-and-seek with the numbers.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:13 am That is my point, no matter what number you choose, eventually not only does it become unprovable by it's own standard, but where it is possible the experiment only proves that "1" is a bell curve made of various other 1's and the foundations of measurement are premised on an assumed indeterminate state.
Hence they are tools, and as such are created. But this leaves your stance in a contradiction, as the numbers are created but do not exist in a definite form. Even if they exist through the observer only, and the observer is a machine from your stance...then the machine is creating something.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:16 amSilly Platonist. Playing hide-and-seek with the numbers.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:13 am That is my point, no matter what number you choose, eventually not only does it become unprovable by it's own standard, but where it is possible the experiment only proves that "1" is a bell curve made of various other 1's and the foundations of measurement are premised on an assumed indeterminate state.
Like I said - I use them for counting. You are welcome to keep looking for 1.
But that is NOT 'what it is'. The car, from your perspective, is only ASSUMED to be running well. From your perspective, you, obviously, do not know if the car is running well. As you will obviously have to admit. So, it is NOT 'what it is'. You only assume or think it is 'what it is'.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:53 pmAge wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:41 amThis appears to be a very funny way to finish off.
"Assuming we know what predictability really is". To you, EVERY thing is assumed, so why question 'what predictability really is' now?
Of course, to you, 'what predictability really is' IS just another assumption. You could NEVER know what any thing really is, including 'predictability'. This is because you can not go against your own beliefs and assumptions. To do so would be to prove yourself WRONG. Therefore, you will start fighting harder and harder, believing more and more that you are Right. Taking a firm stance and NEVER shifting at all. Closing yourself off completely to being able to see any thing else other than what you BELIEVE wholeheartedly is true.
Now, I have already provided you with an example of 'what is not assumed'. That brain could have missed it, purposely, or unintentionally, and so disregarded that example and instead moved onto some thing else.
If that brain missed the example I gave of 'what is not assumed', then that is just another great example of how the brain blinds itself to what is actually true and real. When thee 'Truth' is not what the belief system says is true, then the brain is completely stopped from seeing the actual and real Truth of things.
If, however, that brain is smarter than what I am saying here and did not miss the example I gave of 'what is not assumed', then that brain would be able to prove this.
The majority of this was ad hominems.
The examples you gave where assumptions.
I can write the statement: "this statement is not assumed".
1. The statement is already composed of symbols and words which are assumed.
2. The statement as unassumed will only exist as such because of its self refentiality.
3. However this self refentiality is composed of assumptions and as such needs to continue in defintion.
4. All statements are simultaneously assumed and unassumed, with the lack of assumption meaning a disconnect. For example if I never assume something, I always seek further definition.
For example I might never assume my car is always running well, therefore I am always looking to define potential problems by checking it. If I assume something, I take it for what it is...ie the car is running well.
Being 'taken for what is', obviously does not mean that it is 'what is'.
This is obviously false. "it" does NOT require the definitions to be assumed. You only CHOOSE the definitions to be assumed, as I have already pointed out to you.
Put in point form a list of what you ASSUME are ad hominems, and we will see how close to the Truth your ASSUMPTION here is.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:53 pmAge wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:41 amThis appears to be a very funny way to finish off.
"Assuming we know what predictability really is". To you, EVERY thing is assumed, so why question 'what predictability really is' now?
Of course, to you, 'what predictability really is' IS just another assumption. You could NEVER know what any thing really is, including 'predictability'. This is because you can not go against your own beliefs and assumptions. To do so would be to prove yourself WRONG. Therefore, you will start fighting harder and harder, believing more and more that you are Right. Taking a firm stance and NEVER shifting at all. Closing yourself off completely to being able to see any thing else other than what you BELIEVE wholeheartedly is true.
Now, I have already provided you with an example of 'what is not assumed'. That brain could have missed it, purposely, or unintentionally, and so disregarded that example and instead moved onto some thing else.
If that brain missed the example I gave of 'what is not assumed', then that is just another great example of how the brain blinds itself to what is actually true and real. When thee 'Truth' is not what the belief system says is true, then the brain is completely stopped from seeing the actual and real Truth of things.
If, however, that brain is smarter than what I am saying here and did not miss the example I gave of 'what is not assumed', then that brain would be able to prove this.
The majority of this was ad hominems.
These are ALL your ASSUMPTIONS only, which obviously can be WRONG and FALSE, which some clearly are.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:53 pmI can write the statement: "this statement is not assumed".
1. The statement is already composed of symbols and words which are assumed.
2. The statement as unassumed will only exist as such because of its self refentiality.
3. However this self refentiality is composed of assumptions and as such needs to continue in defintion.
4. All statements are simultaneously assumed and unassumed, with the lack of assumption meaning a disconnect. For example if I never assume something, I always seek further definition.
I also note that you have not once in this reply actually replied to the points I made. Some of which are;Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:53 pmFor example I might never assume my car is always running well, therefore I am always looking to define potential problems by checking it. If I assume something, I take it for what it is...ie the car is running well.
The problem occurs in the respect that even if I assume the car is running well, it is still based upon a specific continuum of definitions (ie no scratches, good tires, new oil, etc.) that are taken for what is. So even with a continuum of definitions these definitions are always assumed. However if I never assumed anything, and seek further definition, it is still requiring the definitions to be assumed.
You aren't paying attention... I have been arguing for constructivist epistemology and constructive mathematics.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:26 am Hence they are tools, and as such are created. But this leaves your stance in a contradiction, as the numbers are created but do not exist in a definite form. Even if they exist through the observer only, and the observer is a machine from your stance...then the machine is creating something.
Which is why in physics you append a unit to signify what it is that you are counting. 1 meter.
This fog of abstraction is called complexity.
So how come the models work?
Of all the fields that are bullshit, psychology is right up there...
Age wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:21 amBut that is NOT 'what it is'. The car, from your perspective, is only ASSUMED to be running well. From your perspective, you, obviously, do not know if the car is running well. As you will obviously have to admit. So, it is NOT 'what it is'. You only assume or think it is 'what it is'.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:53 pmAge wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:41 am
This appears to be a very funny way to finish off.
"Assuming we know what predictability really is". To you, EVERY thing is assumed, so why question 'what predictability really is' now?
Of course, to you, 'what predictability really is' IS just another assumption. You could NEVER know what any thing really is, including 'predictability'. This is because you can not go against your own beliefs and assumptions. To do so would be to prove yourself WRONG. Therefore, you will start fighting harder and harder, believing more and more that you are Right. Taking a firm stance and NEVER shifting at all. Closing yourself off completely to being able to see any thing else other than what you BELIEVE wholeheartedly is true.
Now, I have already provided you with an example of 'what is not assumed'. That brain could have missed it, purposely, or unintentionally, and so disregarded that example and instead moved onto some thing else.
If that brain missed the example I gave of 'what is not assumed', then that is just another great example of how the brain blinds itself to what is actually true and real. When thee 'Truth' is not what the belief system says is true, then the brain is completely stopped from seeing the actual and real Truth of things.
If, however, that brain is smarter than what I am saying here and did not miss the example I gave of 'what is not assumed', then that brain would be able to prove this.
The majority of this was ad hominems.
The examples you gave where assumptions.
I can write the statement: "this statement is not assumed".
1. The statement is already composed of symbols and words which are assumed.
2. The statement as unassumed will only exist as such because of its self refentiality.
3. However this self refentiality is composed of assumptions and as such needs to continue in defintion.
4. All statements are simultaneously assumed and unassumed, with the lack of assumption meaning a disconnect. For example if I never assume something, I always seek further definition.
For example I might never assume my car is always running well, therefore I am always looking to define potential problems by checking it. If I assume something, I take it for what it is...ie the car is running well.
And if I hear a rumbling, I also assume something is wrong. Both functions, good and bad, of the car are determined by the assumption of certain definitions of what a good and bad running car are.
Being 'taken for what is', obviously does not mean that it is 'what is'.
Still an assumption. If the car is good or bad based upon definitions. The most we can observe is the connection of assumptions.
You will NEVER know what IS, because you choose to assume every thing.
Choice, is an assumption. The continual connection and seperation of assumption observes choice is not always applicable under certain contexts. The linear projection of one assumption to another is inevitable. Same with the cycling. Same with each assumption as grounded in a point of awareness.
These forms are inevitable, thus assumption is inseperable from form.
This is obviously false. "it" does NOT require the definitions to be assumed. You only CHOOSE the definitions to be assumed, as I have already pointed out to you.
False. X is composed of y requires y to be assumed. Y is composed of a requires Z to be assumed....etc. X is assumed because Z is assumed. What we observe is a connection of x,y,a but this is an assumption.
Assumption and form are inseperable and the form "just is".
Making assumptions is a CHOOSE you make. You CHOOSE to make assumptions because if you did not, then that would refute your own beliefs, and coincidentally also your own assumptions, which obviously can be completely and utterly WRONG.
For you to do absolutely any thing other than to ASSUME absolutely every thing, then would refute your own distorted beliefs and assumptions.
You are assuming free will alone.
That is just your ASSUMPTION, AND, I already KNOW that you BELIEVE that every thing I say is an assumption.Age wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:34 amPut in point form a list of what you ASSUME are ad hominems, and we will see how close to the Truth your ASSUMPTION here is.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:53 pmAge wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:41 am
This appears to be a very funny way to finish off.
"Assuming we know what predictability really is". To you, EVERY thing is assumed, so why question 'what predictability really is' now?
Of course, to you, 'what predictability really is' IS just another assumption. You could NEVER know what any thing really is, including 'predictability'. This is because you can not go against your own beliefs and assumptions. To do so would be to prove yourself WRONG. Therefore, you will start fighting harder and harder, believing more and more that you are Right. Taking a firm stance and NEVER shifting at all. Closing yourself off completely to being able to see any thing else other than what you BELIEVE wholeheartedly is true.
Now, I have already provided you with an example of 'what is not assumed'. That brain could have missed it, purposely, or unintentionally, and so disregarded that example and instead moved onto some thing else.
If that brain missed the example I gave of 'what is not assumed', then that is just another great example of how the brain blinds itself to what is actually true and real. When thee 'Truth' is not what the belief system says is true, then the brain is completely stopped from seeing the actual and real Truth of things.
If, however, that brain is smarter than what I am saying here and did not miss the example I gave of 'what is not assumed', then that brain would be able to prove this.
The majority of this was ad hominems.
The examples you gave where assumptions.
These are ALL your ASSUMPTIONS only, which obviously can be WRONG and FALSE, which some clearly are.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:53 pmI can write the statement: "this statement is not assumed".
1. The statement is already composed of symbols and words which are assumed.
2. The statement as unassumed will only exist as such because of its self refentiality.
3. However this self refentiality is composed of assumptions and as such needs to continue in defintion.
4. All statements are simultaneously assumed and unassumed, with the lack of assumption meaning a disconnect. For example if I never assume something, I always seek further definition.
I also note that you have not once in this reply actually replied to the points I made. Some of which are;Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:53 pmFor example I might never assume my car is always running well, therefore I am always looking to define potential problems by checking it. If I assume something, I take it for what it is...ie the car is running well.
The problem occurs in the respect that even if I assume the car is running well, it is still based upon a specific continuum of definitions (ie no scratches, good tires, new oil, etc.) that are taken for what is. So even with a continuum of definitions these definitions are always assumed. However if I never assumed anything, and seek further definition, it is still requiring the definitions to be assumed.
If philosophy is a waste of time, why do you keep creating new accounts to come back here?Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:10 amYou aren't paying attention... I have been arguing for constructivist epistemology and constructive mathematics.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:26 am Hence they are tools, and as such are created. But this leaves your stance in a contradiction, as the numbers are created but do not exist in a definite form. Even if they exist through the observer only, and the observer is a machine from your stance...then the machine is creating something.
What the machine is building is a map of the territory. A model. Like LEGO.
Yes, and something (a model) composed of numbers (legos) thus numbers are created.
Hence model-dependent realism.
Which is why in physics you append a unit to signify what it is that you are counting. 1 meter.
Thus requiring an assumed starting point.
This fog of abstraction is called complexity.
Complexity is multiplicity of axioms. An abstract "point" is very simple.
So how come the models work?
"Work" is a defintion of context. All equations are the localization of specific numbers out of infinite numbers.
Of all the fields that are bullshit, psychology is right up there...
That couch session wasn't free. Philosophy makes you dumb - you pay for it.
Says the man basing his grounding off of theories about numbers, with no real defintion of a number but strict assumptions.
Tell me, does counting things to make a paycheck so you can eat and drink more than you need, or give you what you "want" change the fact "want" is always present? It just repeats itself in constant variation.
Abstract knowledge stops being abstract the moment it makes contact with the ground.
True, and the ground stops becoming the ground when it moves towards an abstract form.
Take any particular function f(x) = y and realize it. a.k.a create it.
Applied mathematics. Applied science. Applied engineering.
And if number does not exist...what are you really applying?
All Mathematics is created!
The starting point is human experience. The Imperial system is all about that. Inches, feet, pounds, yards!
Unless it represents The Universe.
Do you have a better system? You've failed to convince me so far.
You got that backwards. I make the paycheck so that I can work less than I want to. Work smart not hard.
Magic sprinkly Unicorn dust!
Because the Church of Philosophy is not up in flames yet.
So what does a world without philosophy exist like?Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:13 pmAll Mathematics is created!
All language is created!
Yes but numbers do not exist according to you.
The starting point is human experience. The Imperial system is all about that. Inches, feet, pounds, yards!
And the human experience begins with emptymind/blank slate, thus is grounded in point space.
Unless it represents The Universe.
Still a single point.
Do you have a better system? You've failed to convince me so far.
I dont have any system, I am merely observing what is.
You got that backwards. I make the paycheck so that I can work less than I want to. Work smart not hard.
work is inevitable, one moves even in a state of luxury.
Magic sprinkly Unicorn dust!
the answer is sophistry.
Because the Church of Philosophy is not up in flames yet.
And if it does, all your numbers disappear. You have to keep in mind, everything you measure and count is fundamentally all the other people's philosophies of life materialized.
How people view even dangerous is a philosophy of life, a way of viewing things.
Philosophy, ie knowledge and the application of knowledge, is what allows you to "work less". It is all ideas, even how the public consumes is formed through ideas.
Trivial question. Define the function which determines whether any particular objects "exists", will you?
Code: Select all
def exists?(object)
if [some condition] then
return # true or false
elsif [some other condition] then
return # True or false
end