- Oct 29, 2017
- 64,441
- 10,678
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Private
That question is answered in the link.
It starts by reading what I wrote on the subject.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What do you mean by 'created'?
.. If I have the time, we can put your claim to the test. That test starts by asking the above question.
Absolute factual pure history.
Yes.. I see you giving your meaning to 'reality' there, of being that of 'empty space'.... What this means is that what we view as rock solid reality, in reality is little more than empty space.
Thank you, sir! I take that as a compliment!I admire the fact that you absolutely cannot be deterred from your position. I don't agree. But it's admirable.
Try reading my post again in order to comprehend it instead of reading your own ideas into it.Exactly backwards. Teaching that's there's More than one possiblity enhances critical thinking, it doesn't stifle it.
Apologies .. I missed reading that link. I notice its starts with axioms assumed (by you) as being 'true'.That question is answered in the link.
It starts by reading what I wrote on the subject.
Yes.. I see you giving your meaning to 'reality' there, of being that of 'empty space'.
(I'm not at all sure that its a particularly useful meaning though
I don't have a clue what you mean by 'transcends your own perception'. But I do understand how we arrive at meanings for 'reality'.
'Right' or 'left' relative to what, precisely?
Also, is the 'rotating image' what you mean by 'this woman'?
Apologies .. I missed reading that link. I notice its starts with axioms assumed (by you) as being 'true'.
At that point you have departed the scientific method .. (enough said .. Belief!)
'The reality of reality' there, appears to be some kind of 'truism', which to me, is completely empty in its meaning.The science is useful in understanding how our perception of reality clouds the reality of reality.
(Re: the underlined bits): I never said that was my personal belief .. IIRC, that was yours!?HARK! said:So tell me, since by far, reality is composed primarily of vacuous space; how do you arrive from that starting point, to your personal belief of the meaning of reality?
I am familiar with this image, and how people see it differently. If it helps to move your point along, I can see both directions of rotation, from time to time.HARK! said:Let's go with the right and left edges of your screen.
I am familiar with this image, and how people see it differently. If it helps to move your point along, I can see both directions of rotation, from time to time.
Exactly .. and they can either be believed as being true or, they can have already been objectively tested by following the scientific method.Logical arguments begin with axioms.
Science's measurable version of 'blue', is defined by position in the EM spectrum (which permits consistent detections of it .. via spectrum analysers). Someone who sees a 'blue' sky however, when another may see it as say 'purple-ish', at sunset say, demonstrates how science achieves more consistent observations of the sky's colour that scientists can then agree on.HARK! said:If we can't agree that the sky is blue; no amount of logic, or theory, will explain why it is blue.
Well, thank you for that demonstration of precisely where 'believing in' something takes a discussion .. (meanwhile, science just keep on moving on).HARK! said:If you choose to believe what flies in the face of the empirical evidence; then I'll leave you to your own perception.
Being honest: no! But it certainly demonstrated how different minds perceive 'reality' in different ways ... At which point, is where science then demonstrates its own usefulness .. which is why it should be taught in schools .. where being 'useful' is still of value to society.Could you see both directions before you became familiar enough with this image to understand the bias of your perception?
Science's measurable version of 'blue', is defined by position in the EM spectrum (which permits consistent detections of it .. via spectrum analysers). Someone who sees a 'blue' sky however, when another may see it as say 'purple-ish', at sunset say, demonstrates how science achieves more consistent observations of the sky's colour that scientists can then agree on.
What is the practical use for an undemonstrated hypothesis?Being honest: no! But it certainly demosntrated how different minds perceive 'reality' in different ways ... At which point, is where science then demonstrates its usefulness .. which is why it should be taught in schools .. where being 'useful' is still of value to society.
actually we know very well why the sky is blue, this assertion is more indicative of your lack of understanding of empirical evidence and the science behind our understanding of the nature of the world we live in.Logical arguments begin with axioms. If we can't agree that the sky is blue; no amount of logic, or theory, will explain why it is blue.
If you choose to believe what flies in the face of the empirical evidence; then I'll leave you to your own perception.
An untested, but still testable in principle (ie: practice or theory) hypothesis, is a type of testable belief (if you like). This is demonstrably different from a pure belief (or speculation, fantasy, sc-fi, delusion, mirage, superstition, etc, etc) .. and that's what makes it a useful concept.What is the practical use for an undemonstrated hypothesis?
How does one "use" that, I mean outside of entertainment purposes?
Science has an explanation (theory) for what a scientist means when they speak of: 'a blue sky'. That explanation becomes part of science's objective reality (once abundantly tested). Not all non scientifically thinking humans would know that however .. which is why science should be taught in schools .. (otherwise, they'd never 'know' that).actually we know very well why the sky is blue, this assertion is more indicative of your lack of understanding of empirical evidence and the science behind our understanding of the nature of the world we live in.
Sorry.
actually we know very well why the sky is blue, this assertion is more indicative of your lack of understanding of empirical evidence and the science behind our understanding of the nature of the world we live in.
Sorry.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?