Ownness (sumthin' short, pithy, and raw; red meat)
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: flash
Your opening post doesn't express any actual facts,
Yeah, that's not right.
Mebbe I'll throw you a bone later and point out the fact, the moral fact (and the reasonin' and means of falsifyin').
It's a lazy Saturday here and my kid has his PS4 fired up, so: don't hold your breath waitin'.
Yeah, that's not right.
Mebbe I'll throw you a bone later and point out the fact, the moral fact (and the reasonin' and means of falsifyin').
It's a lazy Saturday here and my kid has his PS4 fired up, so: don't hold your breath waitin'.
Re: flash
And now I have to explain to your ignorant ass why me observing you asserting "betterness" is evidence for decidability which suggests that there is at least 1 bit of EVIDENCE in the system, otherwise the decider (YOU!) wouldn't be able to answer the question. The "decider" (YOU!) would've said - "they are different, but I can't tell if one is better."FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 6:02 pm Better isn't objective. That's just fucking stupid.
That is what "testability" means in a statistical context. The answer to 1 yes/no question is 1 bit of MEASURED evidence. It is a unit and all. This trivial experiment is testable and reproducible (even though my sample size is 1 - you. You are welcome to go increase the scope/sample size on your own time.) which renders it "objective" in the scientific framework. It's so trivial in fact I am struggling to comprehend what it is that you don't understand.
Perhaps the "fucking stupidity" arrises from the fact that you don't understand how science works and what "testability" and "objectivity" means?
Obviously, there's only so many times I can try and explain to you that you are epistemically challenged - at some point I have to be content that I can't convince you of that fact.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: uwot
Oh, lets go with an easy one.
According to GR time is maleable/relative.
According to QFT time is universal/absolute.
I'd venture a guess that if you subscribe to Aristotelian non-contradiction then one of those is wrong.
Re: uwot
Again, what, in your view, are the facts of general relativity?
Re: uwot
Okie-dokie, so a fact is just some part of a narrative, and needn't bear any relation to anything outside that narrative.
Re: uwot
Well, what is "time" outside of the narratives of GR and QFT?
Because apparently observers (which aren't narratives, right? Observers exist, right?!?) experience "it" (time) differently at the quantum scale than they do at the classical scale.
It's really no biggie though. If time is a problem for you lets go with another one. How about quantum gravity?
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6335
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: flash
But me observing YOU make a DECISION is not an opinion. That is a fact!FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:03 pm Indeed, that would be the thing that makes it opinion.
According to me (the scientist!) there exists a naturally-occurring system which can answer the question "Is 2020AD better than 2000BC?"
That system is you!
You insist that you are a relativist, but then you are NOT saying "They are different, but I can't decide which is better".
Were you lying to to both of us or just to yourself when you (a self-professed relativist) decided on an undecidable matter?
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: uwot
Whatever it is in other narratives. What was time before 1915?
That's a 'fact' of GR. Does it follow that QFT is wrong?
Re: uwot
"Whatever" is not an answer - that's why I am asking you!
Was time relative or absolute before 1915? Was it even conceived as an arrow before the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Maybe it was spiral-shaped in other narratives? Or maybe it was a unicorn!
They are BOTH factual within the framework/context you default to! That doesn't mean either is wrong - it simply means that they have a domain of applicability.
But Mr FlashDangerdork insist that one "fact" must be able to demonstrate that another "fact" is mistaken.
So go ahead and demonstrate. Either QFT or GR has the "facts" about time all wrong.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 1:34 pm Why is your fact not able to demonstrate that his is mistaken?.
Re: uwot
That's selective editing on your part again, Skepdick.
So:
is not an answer, but it is the answer you give.
Well yeah; did Hafele-Keating and every experiment since show that gravity and velocity affect clocks or not?
Re: uwot
At the scale where GR applies - they do!
At the scale where QFT applies - they don't!
So quit skirting around the problem and address it.
GR says: time is relative.
QFT says: time is not relative.
I mean - I don't give a fuck about contradictions, but apparently Philosophers do so how do you reconcile these incompatible "facts"?
According to you does Hafele-Keating demonstrate that QFT is factually wrong about time?
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6335
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: flash
You only observe me having an opinion. It has zero beearing on any fact to do with society being better than it used to be. It's easy to find people with differnt opinions to mine, and then you have facts about opinions which are in direct conflict. These facts are not in conflict specifically because they are not about the object under consideration.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:04 pmBut me observing YOU make a DECISION is not an opinion. That is a fact!FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:03 pm Indeed, that would be the thing that makes it opinion.
None of this bullshit backs up your claim....
Which is still stupid.