It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

page: 116
80
share:

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 10:24 PM

x quantity of rain + y quantity of sun light + b quantity of soil + z quantity of seeds + q quantity of time = r quantity of plant.
That is a model. Are you sure you have all the variables? How good is your model? It's still a model.

A geometric point does not exist. x does not exist.
No matter how you toss the salad.

edit on 5/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 10:46 PM

originally posted by: Phage

x quantity of rain + y quantity of sun light + b quantity of soil + z quantity of seeds + q quantity of time = r quantity of plant.
That is a model. Are you sure you have all the variables? How good is your model? It's still a model.

A geometric point does not exist. x does not exist.
No matter how you toss the salad.

Aha!

You are missing the point (pun slightly intended)

I am not attempting to have all the variables, I am not attempting to make a model or a good one; I am attempting to point at reality and that is it, just pointing at reality, not saying the way in which I am point equals reality, I am just attempting to draw your attention to truths. Not explicitly detailing the truths, just that certain truths are truths.

Do we agree that rain is something?

Do we agree that soil is something?

Do we agree that seed is something?

Do we agree that plant is something?

Do we agree that sun light is something?

All I was attempting to point to, was the fact, that these differing somethings exist;

And that they interact with one another (time, and space);

And that the mixture of these quantities, equals new quantities;

I was pointing to the fact that;

A math equations is the mixing or interacting of quantities via space and time to equal new quantities potentially;

And that reality is an mixing or interacting of quantities via space and time to equal new quantities potentially;

I was pointing to this, to express, that math, what the symbols we write represent, I never claimed that the shape 5 exists in reality and contains in it 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 objects;

But what our human symbols represent, exists beyond the symbols;

That is to say;

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Are symbols.

But in reality;

1 apple exists;

1 and 1 apple exist touching;

1 and 1 and 1 apple exist touching in a pile;

1 and 1 and 1 and 1 apple exist in a group;

etc.

Once again about the geometric point bit, obviously you think you 'had me' or 'got me' and therefore you are ignoring where I for the past few points have been saying;

I have never claimed a 1d point exists;

Are you aware that in geometry there is such concept of 3d shapes?

Are you claiming 3d shapes do not exist?

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 10:52 PM

Are you aware that in geometry there is such concept of 3d shapes? Are you claiming 3d shapes do not exist?

No. I'm saying that geometry is not "real". I'm saying that it is a tool that can be used to represent reality. I'm say that math is not "real." I'm saying that it is a human construct. I've said it several times now. How many more times would you like me to say it?

Are you claiming that 0 dimensional objects exist? You know, the most basic geometrical concept? How can something based on something that is not real, be real?

edit on 5/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 10:58 PM

originally posted by: Phage

No. I'm saying that geometry is not "real". I'm saying that it is a tool that can be used to represent reality. I'm say that math is not "real." I'm saying that it is a human construct. I've said it several times now. How many more times would you like me to say it?

Are you aware that our exact argument has been debated for thousands of years and there are still people on both sides?

You are saying what you are saying, and I am saying you are wrong.

You are saying there is no difference between the shape of a basketball and the great pyramid.

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:00 PM
If I don't open the thread about Quantum Physics, is it really there ?

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:22 PM

originally posted by: babybunnies
If I don't open the thread about Quantum Physics, is it really there ?

No, it is everywhere.

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:37 PM

You are saying there is no difference between the shape of a basketball and the great pyramid.

Not at all. There is quite obviously a difference. Just as there a difference between a picture of a pyramid and an actual pyramid.

I'm saying that math is not reality.
I'm saying that math is a tool which can help us model reality.

A point is the most basic concept of geometry and it does not exist.
The concept of the square root of negative one has no meaning in reality but it is a useful mathematical tool. You know that, right?

Just because a mathematical construct exists does not mean a corresponding reality does.

edit on 5/18/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:58 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

This is a relevant question; Because if you are saying there does not always exist the same number of photons;

You are saying that objects that are not photons can become photons and vice versa...

It's obvious that there does not always exist the same number of photons.

Objects don't become photons under normal circumstances. Objects can emit them, though.

Where and what are photons before objects emit them?

Where is the person when he jumps off the bridge?

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:59 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr

No first photons aren't particles and they aren't waves those are just qualities of out photon. It is both it is neither.you want to put photons into a niche they are like nothing else. And at the same time like everything else since even matter can have waves.

Just because you dont know the way reality exactly exists;

Does not mean reality does not exist exactly in a way;

It is exactly more that;

Reality exists exactly in a way;

You dont know the way in which reality exactly exists;

We must use experiment and thought to best approach a comprehension of the way in which reality exists.

Anything that ever has existed and ever will exist is comparable to geometry.

NO I'm trying to tell you your just looking at diffret aspects of a photon. It's not one or the other it's both. Depends on what we're looking for as to what we see. Reminds me of the story of the three blind men trying to describe an elephant. They argue nit realizing they are describing parts of the same thing.

No, the only meaning of the word particle is; Ball like.

If a photon is not; Ball like

It is like, not like, a particle.

It like can't be a ball, because it has no extent. It's a point.

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 12:00 AM

originally posted by: Bedlam

Where is the person when he jumps off the bridge?

Are you implying that he is no where?

Are you implying that he does not exist?

Are you implying that he is not an exact difference away from the bridge at all times?

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 12:02 AM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Phage

You said geometry is real but you cannot show me the geometric constructs I delineated.

Is a point real? You yourself said it is not. Yet it is the most basic concept of geometry. Your word salad gets tiresome.

If there were 3 rocks on the ground, and 3 sticks broke off of a tree and fell connecting the 3 dots, that would be a triangle. Geometry is eternal and true, and all that exists and ever exists, does so, physically in relation to the perfect laws of perfect geometry. The self consistent rule of math is contained in the geometry of space.

When space isn't flat, though, the geometry becomes non-Euclidean.

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 12:05 AM

originally posted by: darkorange

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi
So we have two different photons, traveling with/as different frequencies.

What is the meaning of a single photon traveling as a frequency?

A single ball, bobbing up and down?

Is that the closest analogy and capturer of reality?

Not at all. Photons aren't balls, they don't bob up and down. I'd have to say, it's not even close as an analogy.

Ok, then light IS NEVER PARTICLE LIKE!

And; LIGHT IS A MEDIUM OF MATTER WHICH EXISTS AT ALL POINTS OF SPACE AT ALL TIMES

Either light is separate particle balls.

Or light is a medium.

I somewhat agree.

There you have your electron that needs no 'power' to keep going forever as it does because it is made of light essentially?

Electrons are not photons. Photons have no charge.

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 12:06 AM

If he has any contact he hasn't jumped yet. If no contact, he already jumped.

You keep quibbling over the point where the photon is instantiated. Same issue.

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 12:14 AM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Bedlam

Where is the person when he jumps off the bridge?

Are you implying that he is no where?

Are you implying that he does not exist?

Are you implying that he is not an exact difference away from the bridge at all times?

It may that he is matter in waiting for a catalyst.

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 12:38 AM

originally posted by: Phage

Not at all. There is quite obviously a difference. Just as there a difference between a picture of a pyramid and an actual pyramid.

Lets shrink the great pyramid down to the relative size of a basketball;

And lets also say we have a soccer ball, that is the same size as the basketball, it has the same area;

The difference between the basketball and the pyramid, is the difference of the transcendental concept of spatial geometry. The essential tautological definitions that are needed to equal a sphere, express themselves.

The basketball and the soccer ball which have equal area in this example, have physical differences, but they share sphereness;

they both can be deflated slightly, and no longer appear as a sphere;

The conceptual essence of sphere is always a potential, for objects to appropriate towards being compared too;

and although seemingly impossible for objects to ever be 100% perfect embodiments of the abstractly perfect geometric conceptual forms;

It is the perfect forms, which they are relatively approximating.

Ok so that is where your argument is coming from;

That because a perfect faultless sphere does not and cannot exist (because substance is shaky and bouncy and vibey and microly uneven) that therefore the term sphere and the concept sphere do not relate to anything that is real.

I think because we can understand what the basketball is attempting to embody, while understanding how and why it cannot perfectly embody it, we have conceptual grasping of the difference between them, and this conceptual grasping is the knowing of the perfect sphere.

Say we made in space a 3d graph, and wrote numbers on the axis up to 100 in 4 directions (up down line; left right line; towards away line) and it was an equatable units of size/scale;

And this was a real object in space (with magical features that you will see why I say this);

Now lets imagine this graph halved in scale; not merely to say that the graph lines got cut by 50 notches in all directions;

But that 100 notches in all directions remained;

but that the entire graph halved its scale, so that where 50 was, now is 100;

And this kept happening and happening and happening, halving and halving;

The concept of the planck length appears to be that eventually, even if there is an area of nothingness of space;

that area of nothing, can be cornered, until the smallest 3d unit possible of nothing, is arrived at;

Now I wonder if that area would necessarily be in and of a geometry,

But anyway, this is my attempt to express the impossibility of area besides 3d,

There must be a fundamental limit, even if true area of nothing exists as true area of nothing;

there must be a theoretical and hypothetical but actual and real smallest possible area, which cannot be halved any more;

and it cannot be that this smallest possible area is composed of 2 2d areas, or a 2d plus a 1d area, Because (I dont believe true 2d exists, but lets pretend for a moment a 2d object existed) if you stacked 20 2d objects on top of each other you wouldnt get anything other than a 2d object.

But I suppose if you oriented 6 2d objects in such a way as to form a cube, you would have a 3d area;

But that would be depending on 3d space to already exist;

And if 3d space already exists, then you cannot zoom into it and arrive at a less than 3d area;

Now, one can say;

Space is not inherently 3d, space is inherently 0 dimensions and infinite dimensions, and that it completely depends on the nature of the material in this space; to create the relative areas;

and that is certainly an interesting thought,

I'm saying that math is not reality.
I'm saying that math is a tool which can help us model reality.

I am saying reality is physical math functions.

Math, the symbols we use and call math, is physical math functions, but of a subtler and more symbolic kind. The real numbers and negative numbers and complex numbers is a pure timeless system; humans did not invent 3d graph, and then to make equally spaced notches in the dimensions of this graph, humans discovered that this timeless possibility was possible to do. Humans didnt invent triangles; if there are intelligent beings on another planet, who made 3 points and connected them with lines, would you admit humans didnt invent triangles? That the triangle is a timeless potential that is always equal to itself?

A point is the most basic concept of geometry and it does not exist.
The concept of the square root of negative one has no meaning in reality but it is a useful mathematically tool. You know that, right?

Just because a mathematically construct exists does not mean a corresponding reality does.

There are concepts that are claimed to be concepts of geometry which dont exist, which I claim are not real concepts of geometry and agree they do not exist.

There are concepts of geometry, which do exist.

Take a pen and make 3 dots on a piece of paper and connect them with 3 lines;

This is a concept of geometry which exists.

Draw the appearance of a 3d graph; and label numbers on the axis which make up the graph at equal distance apart;

The statement; square root of negative 1;

is demanding that you do something with points in relation to the numbers and the graph;

you cant ignore the meaning and the physicality of the graph;

When you perform the calculations and functions, without considering the graphs existence, the graphs existence is considered by the fact of the calculations.

The graph can be drawn in many sizes and colors and with different materials, but the meaning is timeless and absolute.

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 12:40 AM

originally posted by: Bedlam

When space isn't flat, though, the geometry becomes non-Euclidean.

Only relatively;

The schizophrenic on the street corner has very interesting relative experiences too

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 12:42 AM

Ok so that is where your argument is coming from;
Not really.

The graph can be drawn in many sizes and colors and with different materials, but the meaning is timeless and absolute.
No. It is a representation of an aspect of reality. It is ink marks on a piece of paper. That is its only "reality." Is a chart of a child's growth a child?

It doesn't really matter how many words you write if there is no content. Less is often more.
Math is not reality.

edit on 5/18/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 12:44 AM

originally posted by: Bedlam

If he has any contact he hasn't jumped yet. If no contact, he already jumped.

You keep quibbling over the point where the photon is instantiated. Same issue.

No, entirely different.

in the photon example; at time x1 no photon exists; at time x2 photon exists;

in your jumping example; there is no thing that at one point in time does not exist, and in a following point of time exists.

'jumping' is not a thing; it is a complex event that a thing made of things on a thing made of things can do over time by utilizing certain things which moves things made of things.

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 12:46 AM

originally posted by: Phage

Math is not reality.

Is your definition of math symbols like these: 4 2 59 62 602969206 0269 02692 + - = ?

If your definition of math is symbols like those, than yes, reality is not symbols like those.

But;

Reality is composed of what those symbols represent, which is; quantity.

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 12:48 AM

Reality is composed of what those symbols represent, which is; quantity.

You're getting the idea. You used the word "represent." Math is not reality.
What quantity is the square root of negative one?
What volume does a point occupy? What volume do 15 billion points occupy?
Just because there is a mathematical construct, it does not mean there is a corresponding reality.

edit on 5/18/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

80