I think that science and art take account of different aspects of reality; science is cumulative with respect to the knowledge and is corroborated by mathematics and experimental corroboration.
On the other hand art makes use of metaphor. Metaphor is useful in some contexts.
But the interesting thing is that maths does not depend on experiments. It is like philosophy or art. It does not depend on the way that the stone falls. And there is of course religion, but I am not very fond of it.
You really are insufferably stupid. Ok. Sorry, dude, but if you can't follow even a simple instruction, I won't have you posting on my channel. Blocked again, and this time for keeps.
For the record: after starting to post comments on comment_servlet?all_comments&v=wZr4TDnB5oU our crazy little friend here decided to start posting his retarded comments all over my channel. I blocked him as a shot across the bough, gave him ONE chance to start behaving himself. Which he chose not to take.
I agree with what you say is his assertion, but it still smacks of semantics, seeing as two halves still make one whole. Anti-matter/Matter. Life/Death. Yin/Yang... all just words to describe reality and it's "rules". That being said, he hasn't really proven anything. And we'll just have to see what he responds with.
Yes. I think the problem arises when you try to separate such "halves" out. As they form a single reality, they cannot truly be separated. You cannot have life without death. You cannot have "yin" without "yang". It makes no sense.
You'll get no argument from me there. And if mo leaves such gaps in his argument (or even begs the question), then he simply has not succeeded in proving anything.
Semantical. We all share one reality. Reality is based on real. Real on objectivity. Objectivity on truth. All basically the same crap. I took Mo's separation of "realities" to exhibit the separation that an Atheist might make to denounce the metaphysical. He didn't at any point seem to propose two separate realities. Maybe "perception" would be a more apt term to support his meaning (?)
I don't think so. Mo's whole argument hinges on his assertion that there is a metaphysical reality that is separate from and dictates the behaviour of our physical reality. Without that assertion, the argument breaks down.
I have to wonder what the hell is going on with all the dimensions I've heard exist, since we only sense or relate to the dimensions that we're able to.
Albert Einstein, perhaps due to efficiency, made a mistake and used the exponential function on C. In order for me to relate to you, I have to send light to you, and receive light from you. Light I send, to me, is dark, as uses my energy, and sends it away from me. A more accurate formula is E=MCD; C & D might be equivalent or become equivalent, but in practice, are continuously variable at any instant.
I think that science and art take account of different aspects of reality; science is cumulative with respect to the knowledge and is corroborated by mathematics and experimental corroboration.
On the other hand art makes use of metaphor. Metaphor is useful in some contexts.
But the interesting thing is that maths does not depend on experiments. It is like philosophy or art. It does not depend on the way that the stone falls. And there is of course religion, but I am not very fond of it.
berveiga 3 years ago
Yes, that's true. I think math in a way is like a game with rules. If you want to play the game you have to stick to the rules.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
stop reading from a paper
asouqiyyeh 2 years ago
You really are insufferably stupid. Ok. Sorry, dude, but if you can't follow even a simple instruction, I won't have you posting on my channel. Blocked again, and this time for keeps.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
For the record: after starting to post comments on comment_servlet?all_comments&v=wZr4TDnB5oU our crazy little friend here decided to start posting his retarded comments all over my channel. I blocked him as a shot across the bough, gave him ONE chance to start behaving himself. Which he chose not to take.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
I agree with what you say is his assertion, but it still smacks of semantics, seeing as two halves still make one whole. Anti-matter/Matter. Life/Death. Yin/Yang... all just words to describe reality and it's "rules". That being said, he hasn't really proven anything. And we'll just have to see what he responds with.
dQuarters 4 years ago
Yes. I think the problem arises when you try to separate such "halves" out. As they form a single reality, they cannot truly be separated. You cannot have life without death. You cannot have "yin" without "yang". It makes no sense.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
You'll get no argument from me there. And if mo leaves such gaps in his argument (or even begs the question), then he simply has not succeeded in proving anything.
dQuarters 3 years ago
Semantical. We all share one reality. Reality is based on real. Real on objectivity. Objectivity on truth. All basically the same crap. I took Mo's separation of "realities" to exhibit the separation that an Atheist might make to denounce the metaphysical. He didn't at any point seem to propose two separate realities. Maybe "perception" would be a more apt term to support his meaning (?)
dQuarters 4 years ago
I don't think so. Mo's whole argument hinges on his assertion that there is a metaphysical reality that is separate from and dictates the behaviour of our physical reality. Without that assertion, the argument breaks down.
rozeboosje 4 years ago
I have to wonder what the hell is going on with all the dimensions I've heard exist, since we only sense or relate to the dimensions that we're able to.
DieselBodine 4 years ago
Those dimensions are necessary to make "string" theories work. But there are people who have doubts about those theories.
rozeboosje 4 years ago
Albert Einstein, perhaps due to efficiency, made a mistake and used the exponential function on C. In order for me to relate to you, I have to send light to you, and receive light from you. Light I send, to me, is dark, as uses my energy, and sends it away from me. A more accurate formula is E=MCD; C & D might be equivalent or become equivalent, but in practice, are continuously variable at any instant.
nevinwilliams 4 years ago
Excellent, yet again.
TheKidFrom13thStreet 4 years ago
Thank you.
rozeboosje 4 years ago
ohoh--I hope I can handle this, I couldn't handle MoistHeMan.
nicanicabad 4 years ago
:-)
rozeboosje 4 years ago
I think I need an english dictionary ready for the next video's XD. But that is more up to the fact that my english isn't really that good.
0092b 4 years ago
LOL
rozeboosje 4 years ago
WOOT WOOT!
worldlystone 4 years ago
teehee!!
rozeboosje 4 years ago