Because?
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.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 7:31 pm Not quite the same as declaring it non-empty, or some thing.
Which was my point.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 7:31 pm As 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.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 7:31 pm**latex rubber space supporting a bowling ball, that sort of thing
Because nothing is a state of affair that there is no thing. By thing, I mean object, time, space, etc.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:02 pmBecause?
Or are you going to offer me nothing by way of proof that nothing means something?
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.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:02 pmBecause?
Or are you going to offer me nothing by way of proof that nothing means something?
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.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.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:02 pm
Because?
Or are you going to offer me nothing by way of proof that nothing means something?
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.Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 5:52 pm Thats pretty cool. You have another translation in english. In my scandinavian language it simply "kunskapens träd"(the tree of knowledge).
The original Hebrew reads:
but you must not
לֹ֥א (lō)
Adverb - Negative particle
Strong's Hebrew 3808: Not, no
eat
תֹאכַ֖ל (ṯō·ḵal)
Verb - Qal - Imperfect - second person masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 398: To eat
from
מִמֶּ֑נּוּ (mim·men·nū)
Preposition | third person masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 4480: A part of, from, out of
the tree
וּמֵעֵ֗ץ (ū·mê·‘êṣ)
Conjunctive waw, Preposition-m | Noun - masculine singular construct
Strong's Hebrew 6086: Tree, trees, wood
of the knowledge
הַדַּ֙עַת֙ (had·da·‘aṯ)
Article | Noun - feminine singular construct
Strong's Hebrew 1847: Knowledge
of good
ט֣וֹב (ṭō·wḇ)
Noun - masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 2896: Pleasant, agreeable, good
and evil;
וָרָ֔ע (wā·rā‘)
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.
Naw.
Don't know willie and fanny. Do know Hebrew originals.Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 9:38 pm So the willie and the fanny are evil stuff? ( I tried the straightforward nomenclature but got stars)
But that is logically so. The penis and the vagina are evil. At least, exposed.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 9:41 pmDon't know willie and fanny. Do know Hebrew originals.Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 9:38 pm So the willie and the fanny are evil stuff? ( I tried the straightforward nomenclature but got stars)
Sez who?
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.attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 3:45 pm How is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil...NOT a Tree of Knowledge?
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.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:13 amAnd, btw: space is analog, not digital...seamless, smooth (mebbe a little lumpy here and there); time is a measure, not a substance or dimension.
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.attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2019 2:36 am 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?
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.Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2019 1:06 pm
Expected reactions like this. What i mean is deep existential matters that can shake the fundamentals of existence itsef. Fear on a level unfathomable. Some thoughts should be avoided.
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.