How exactly does space/time fabric work?

kpmarine said:
First, you must prove to me that bigfoot is completely and utterly false. Now that the pointing out of the obvious problem with your closing statement has been done...

Please, prove to me how they could possibly avoid basic arithmetic if they have any sort of commerce. You can't have an inventory without addition and subtraction.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous sophistry. No one is proposing an alternate to human math. To try to slide the argument into fairy tail is punk, if you don't understand what sophistry is. Punk to suppose commerce is necessary. Punk to propose counting is necessary. Egocentric and exo-phobic.
 
You really love that word sophistry. Though i'm not sure you actually understand how to use it. There is nothing sneaky or deceptive about kpmarines response. I think he raises a very valid point; The burden of proof is with fb360, and he has not offered any alternative explanation.
 
The more I think about it, the more ludicrous your statement that it is punk to suppose commerce and counting are necessary becomes. It is beyond absurd to think any species could be what we consider "intelligent" would not have mastered basic things like counting.
 
guy incognito said:
You really love that word sophistry. Though i'm not sure you actually understand how to use it. There is nothing sneaky or deceptive about kpmarines response. I think he raises a very valid point; The burden of proof is with fb360, and he has not offered any alternative explanation.
Click to expand...

That is the essence of Punk debate. (sophistry) It is false to suggest that there is suddenly a burden of proof on a subject such as this. False Argument. You don't know what sophistry is, actually? It's just a word. To big for you? Use Punk instead. No matter. Still a false substitution to produce a right-fight over a very stupid concept of proof, in this context.

You can't PROVE human math has any validity beyond human thought. So, therefore, for me to insist on holding you to the impossible standard, would be Punk or an exercise in Sophistry, if you will.
 
If anyone is using sophistry it is you. Stop referring to it as human math. It's just math. 1 + 1 = 2, and that is NOT unique to humans, which is the point.
 
guy incognito said:
The more I think about it, the more ludicrous your statement that it is punk to suppose commerce and counting are necessary becomes. It is beyond absurd to think any species could be what we consider "intelligent" would not have mastered basic things like counting.
Click to expand...

You are just showing a lack of mastery of your ego sense. It is the argument that is punk. The call for proof, is punk.

Statements such as, "beyond absurd" "the more ludicrous" "mastered basic things" "what we consider intelligent....what? They may not consider us to be intelligent.... have you thought about that?

It is human math only. There is no intellectually honest way to refute that. It is human senses and human outlooks and human math. Ants seem to do PDG with no human math.

So, think again and honestly try to drop the one sided right-fight.
 
guy incognito said:
If anyone is using sophistry it is you. Stop referring to it as human math. It's just math. 1 + 1 = 2, and that is NOT unique to humans, which is the point.
Click to expand...

You don't know that. Can't know that. So insisting that you do, is punk.

Humans are unique, sophist. Correct? So the only evidence is directly against your assertion.

Unique, Human only, math. You have not other datum. Or are you just trolling for argument?
 
guy incognito said:
The more I think about it, the more ludicrous your statement that it is punk to suppose commerce and counting are necessary becomes. It is beyond absurd to think any species could be what we consider "intelligent" would not have mastered basic things like counting.
Click to expand...

Do you consider dolphins intelligent? How about Chimps?
 
Doer said:
You are just showing a lack of mastery of your ego sense. It is the argument that is punk. The call for proof, is punk.

Statements such as, "beyond absurd" "the more ludicrous" "mastered basic things" "what we consider intelligent....what? They may not consider us to be intelligent.... have you thought about that?

It is human math only. There is no intellectually honest way to refute that. It is human senses and human outlooks and human math. Ants seem to do PDG with no human math.

So, think again and honestly try to drop the one sided right-fight.
Click to expand...

If they make contact with us, or become aware of our existence in any way, they MUST be utilizing some kind of technology. Almost certainly it will be using instruments, and the principals of math, to make measurements which are outside of their natural senses. They will, same as us, will come to the realization that their own personal senses are really just a small fraction of a larger spectrum. A larger spectrum that will still have universal fundamental properties, and be measurable and quantifiable.

I think it's presumptuous, and a bit ironic, that you think ants don't use math. Talk about a narrow egotistical view. Or the fact that you consider ants to be doing pretty darn good given the context of this discussion.
 
fb360 said:
We already went through this.

Coin, paper and physical "currency" is a primitive human concept.

If you live off of energy, and you have an abundant form of energy, you don't need petty currency. I don't see how you could even project currency onto an intelligent species as it is given... No it isn't. Neither is arithmetic.

And my statement is so much different than your "analogy" lol... He was trying to TELL me that IT IS 100% IMPOSSIBLE to have an intelligent life form without physical form, as if he can scientifically prove it. I never once stated that it is CERTAIN to be true, rather, I speculated it COULD be true, much like your example. However, the Earth is a finite size, and a small finite size at that relative to the universe, which could be infinite, and could exist infinitely in parallel, who knows. Comparing speculation of bigfoot to the universe is silly.
Click to expand...

I said inventory. That's your collection of goods in a store. You sell one item in another part of the universe, you have to use basic arithmetic to track it. I made no mention of currency. You're answering a question I didn't ask.
 
Doer said:
Ridiculous sophistry. No one is proposing an alternate to human math. To try to slide the argument into fairy tail is punk, if you don't understand what sophistry is. Punk to suppose commerce is necessary. Punk to propose counting is necessary. Egocentric and exo-phobic.
Click to expand...

I was pointing out the fact he asked someone to prove a negative. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. Take a course in reading comprehension, or something.

There is no such thing as "human math". Whether I'm me, or an alien from some distant solar system, this applies: If I have one apple and Jimmy has one apple, and then Jimmy gives me his apple, I have two apples. Basic arithmetic is still in effect. They may not use the same base counting system, but the end result is unchanged. You're implying that math is not a constant, and that would mean it is subjective (At least from the way I'm reading you.). If math is subjective, then how does it keep working for everyone universally?
 
Seedling said:
Do you consider dolphins intelligent? How about Chimps?
Click to expand...

Off point. Can you not even imagine that compared to "something," human might not appear intelligent? When we finally establish some sort of communication, if even possible, can we prove we are more intelligent than dolphins? We are very violent.

Will we even get a chance? All our measures of intelligence, when finally decoded, could easily be "understood" as dog tricks. These dogs. Another dog world.

This math they keep babbling about,...silly dogs. We see dogs like this all over, messing up their planet.

They might say....Can you imagine a species that has such low intellect that it can't do orbital mechanics in it's head. Has to write, EVERYTHING down??? Works from idealized Solids? Distances by this stupid triangle approach. Can only operate in causal spacetime? Sickening and disgusting.

They think bio-dog-evolution is the only way to intelligence? It is the only dead-end if the murder is any indication. They don't even think, just these mind barks.

Just read so more si-fi? It is we, who have no data point that our math is not just some cruel trick of nature, that we need it as a crutch.
 
Doer said:
Ridiculous sophistry. No one is proposing an alternate to human math. To try to slide the argument into fairy tail is punk, if you don't understand what sophistry is. Punk to suppose commerce is necessary. Punk to propose counting is necessary. Egocentric and exo-phobic.
Click to expand...

...and oddly homoerotic. cn
 
kpmarine said:
I was pointing out the fact he asked someone to prove a negative. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. Take a course in reading comprehension, or something.

There is no such thing as "human math". Whether I'm me, or an alien from some distant solar system, this applies: If I have one apple and Jimmy has one apple, and then Jimmy gives me his apple, I have two apples. Basic arithmetic is still in effect. They may not use the same base counting system, but the end result is unchanged. You're implying that math is not a constant, and that would mean it is subjective (At least from the way I'm reading you.). If math is subjective, then how does it keep working for everyone universally?
Click to expand...

You are just making assertion ad nauseam. Brother, it is all Subjective. It is based solely on the senses of Our Unique HUMAN family. All we sense and figure out and can somewhat agree upon we call Objective Reality. We are not even born with an Objective Reality. We have to be taught based, only on our senses.

You can not postulate that our subjective, species based Consensual Objective Reality is, at all, Universal. No other datum.

Just think about what you are saying. You have one, strictly Human only, data point. Now that is not even a graph or creates a baseline or a comparative picture of any kind. But, you want to claim it is universal.
 
Doer said:
You are just making assertion ad nauseam. Brother, it is all Subjective. It is based solely on the senses of Our Unique HUMAN family. All we sense and figure out and can somewhat agree upon we call Objective Reality. We are not even born with an Objective Reality. We have to be taught based, only on our senses.

You can not postulate that our subjective, species based Consensual Objective Reality is, at all, Universal. No other datum.

Just think about what you are saying. You have one, strictly Human only, data point. Now that is not even a graph or creates a baseline or a comparative picture of any kind. But, you want to claim it is universal.
Click to expand...

Dude, our senses cover a very very limited spectrum of what's out there. The fact that we have discovered the math and extrapolated it to all parts of the spectrum that we don't see with the naked eye, and it works, proves that it is not based solely on our limited perspective. It in fact appears that the laws of physics are universal. And it appears that mathematics describes this. We can now detect things that are not based on our unique (ironically it's not unique to humans) senses. We can detect things so far off our human spectrum that it is unfathomable to us, but the math still works out.
 
guy incognito said:
Dude, our senses cover a very very limited spectrum of what's out there. The fact that we have discovered the math and extrapolated it to all parts of the spectrum that we don't see with the naked eye, and it works, proves that it is not based solely on our limited perspective. It in fact appears that the laws of physics are universal. And it appears that mathematics describes this. We can now detect things that are not based on our unique (ironically it's not unique to humans) senses. We can detect things so far off our human spectrum that it is unfathomable to us, but the math still works out.
Click to expand...

It certainly does appear that way. It appears that it can't be proved one way or another. We make our mathematics describe our world view. Stipulate.

The block, is the idea that it appears to be Universal....only to us. Simply, that we cannot imagine, is in no way a disqualify to me.

Do you get what I'm saying about data? You have no way to know if the Chrystal Sphere of Heavens, is not true. We could get out to an edge maybe, not even too far, maybe that is clear, yet, solid space. We get so smug in our assumptions. But, there is no way to know that we are not ultimately looking at inside edge of the Singularity we are in.

It only appears to be. That is actually quite the scientific view. Until, at least, one more thinking creature is discovered; And we can communicate; And if it can even learn math, much less HAS math, only then, will there be the second datum. And then I can, hey, maybe math is Universal, but need more data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top