I'm more saying that for example, if there wwas no light, we wouldn't have a word for dark If there was only one wavelength, we wouldnt be able to distinguish "color" -yuri
the color orange only exists relative to other colors. In the same way you couldn't perceive light without dark -yuri
I'm not sure if you are doing this on purpose or if you have a mental problem that makes it impossible for you to infer the meaning of speach if the words are incorrect. Typically iif a human said something obviously wrong, such as "the bid flew" other humans would know he meant "bird" Either way ill try to explain this so you can understand. Wavelength is the measurement of movement. It only exists because it moves So if there was only one particle there would be no relative movement and therefore no space and therefore no wavelength -yuri once again. Yes. Pretty sure I've said that -yuri
Ah, I knew it was too good to be true; that is, for me to point out your inconsistencies', and you yet not resorting to derogating my intelligence. But it's okay, for a man who commits as many fallacies as you do, is not a man whose opinion I would personally look to, for a sound one. For you again, even in this post, commit another fallacy! Would you like me to point it for you...? Nvm, I was going to do it whether you like it or not. First, you say, "wavelength is the measurement of movement. It only exists because it moves". Meaning, "it" (i.e., "x", or "A") only exists because it moves, and not because it's measured, right? That is to say, its movement is not dependent on the measurement of it, but rather presupposes it, i.e., the specific motion presupposes any measurement; does it not? And yet in the very next sentence you go on to say, and in complete odds with what you express right before it, that,"if there was only one particle there would be no relative movement and therefore no space and therefore no wavelength." So which is it? Is the movement of a material particle dependent on a relation measurement, or not? Or is its specific movement, due to its own, individual, movement (without a need for relational measurement, and which ultimately allows for thus presupposing the external relation)?
wavelength is a measurement of a particles movement. A wave is the description of how the particle oscillates as it moves in space Once again, this measurement of wavelength requires a frame of reference which can only exist if there is another object to relate the wave movement to If there was only one particle there would be no wavelength because there is no movement. -yuri
Ah... this is going to be good. So now, yuri, let me ask you this... what's the difference between an observer, and a "frame of reference"? If you say nothing, then you've, again, contradicted yourself; seeing as, two posts prior, you say that you grant the world to exist without an observer (which actually wouldn't be the case, if you take the terms "observer" and "frame of reference" to mean the same exact thing). But if you say that there is a difference; then you'll only just go to prove my original point. If you remember what it was? Which asserts that things really exist without a conceptual apprehension of them; seeing as you and I don't take, or impute the capacity for conceptual discernment to sub-atomic particles. Do we?
Frame of reference in this case is simply the relation between particles. Wavelength is a measure of movement. Movement of an object only exists as a relation to another object. I might ask what your definition of an observer is? The act of observing is simply particle interactions between our receptors and what they detect (like light and sound). The short answer to your question is yes. All things exist only as a relation to other things. And observation is simply interaction, meaning even rocks count as observers. So in a sense existence only exists to observe itseld -yuri
So there can be no " existence " without an observer, right? And yet you said that you have supposedly claimed, over and over, that existence can be without an observer. So again, my friend, you contradict yourself; need I mind you?... when I asked you in this very page... and whereby you replied... So can it, or can it not? You're arguing for both cases, yuri. P.S. Never knew that scientists take rocks to be "observers"? Are you just making that up? Or is interaction and observation synonymous terms in science? But still, this doesn't do anything to disprove point; real things and real qualities exist without conceptual discernment. Seeing as rock don't have concepts, even if they may "interact" with their surroundings.
Wrong. I never said that. I simply asked what your definition of observer was and asserted that if you were to consider all particles observers, then yes you'd be right. <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' > And yet you said that you have supposedly claimed, over and over, that existence can be <em class='bbc'>without </em>an observer. So again, my friend, you contradict yourself; need I mind you?... when I asked you in this very page... and whereby you replied... So can it, or can it not? You're arguing for both cases, yuri. </blockquote>you are mistaken. I never argued both sides. I never said observers are required for existence. Not once. <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' > P.S. Never knew that scientists take rocks to be "observers"? Are you just making that up? </blockquote>this is why I accused you of trolling. Why do you do this? I OBVIOUSLY never claimed rocks are observers. The content was clear as day and you still twisted my words. Why? Let me explain again. The act of "seeing" is simply the particles in your eyes interacting with particles hitting your eyes. Objectively this is no different than particles hitting a rock. So is a rock an observer? I never claimed it was. I asked you if it was. Then said that "IF" a rock is an observer, "THEN" observation might be required. <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' > Or is interaction and observation synonymous terms in science? But still, this doesn't do anything to disprove point; real things and real qualities exist without conceptual discernment. Seeing as rock don't have concepts, even if they may "interact" with their surroundings. </blockquote> What are you even talking about at this point? I feel like you aren't even interested in the topic and simply want to tear apart my.wording to get a rise out of me. This is called trolling and is against the rulles so tread lightly. -yuri
I'd be happy to continue this philosophical discussion. But if you keep focusing on my faults and twisting words it will be difficult. I will have to bow out if you can't explain your own point. At this point you are only trying to dissect people's wording and aren't actually contributing to the discussion -yuri
Yuri, be honest, how much weed do you smoke before coming onto the forum? lol, Or else I'm bat sht blind here. You very clearly wrote (and even remembered to add your little name tag, or whatever, at the end of the post, so that we readers won't be [I'm assuming] mistaken as the author of it)... - And another thing, "seeing" doesn't simply consist in particles ricocheting off an eyeball - for if that were the case, most blind people wouldn't be blind! Seeing as most blind persons can actually open their eyes, thus allowing light rays to bounce off them; and yet don't posses vision. Indeed, the difference between light particles bouncing off of (or interacting with) a mere rock, as opposed to an operational human being, is that the former doesn't channel and funnel data in order to (later) convert it; that is, convert it into something that it's not prior to the reception. That is to say, the eyes, as objects, don't actually "see", yuri, but merely (act as a means in order to) assimilate data for cortical processing - something which a rock cannot and doesn't do.
And again, my original point, which was first mentioned when began this particular back and forth of ours', was that things (their properties') remain as they do, regardless of a human observer's conceptual apprehension of them. A point which, again, has not been by any means invalidated (or questioned) by anything you've written thus far - for again, I'm presuming we both accept the fact that sub-atomic particles do not posses the capacity for conceptions and conceptual discernment.
and its clear what I meant too I was humoring you assuming you were baiting me into admitting observers are required for existence I do not believe observers are required and never did <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' > - And another thing, "seeing" doesn't simply consist in particles ricocheting off an eyeball - for if that were the case, most blind people wouldn't be blind! Seeing as most blind persons can actually open their eyes, thus allowing light rays to bounce off of them; and yet don't posses vision. Indeed, the difference between light particles bouncing off of (or interacting with) a mere rock, as opposed to operational human being, is that the former doesn't channel and funnel data in order to (later) <em class='bbc'>convert </em>it; that is, convert it into something that it's not <em class='bbc'>prior to</em> the reception. That is to say, the eyes as objects don't actually "see", yuri, but merely (act as a means in order to) assimilate data for cortical processing - something which a rock cannot and doesn't do. </blockquote>Ok -yuri I never disagreed with this <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' >A point which, again, has not been by any means invalidated (or questioned) by anything you've written thus far - </blockquote>Why would it? <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' >for again, I'm presuming we both accept the fact that sub-atomic particles <strong class='bbc'>do not</strong> posses the capacity for conceptions and conceptual discernment. </blockquote>And? -yuri
Thanks for proving my point here tho. Its as though I said "bids fly", and you said, "what's a bid?" Typically people should know I leant bird, unless they were trolling me -yuri
If you define the terms, "frame of reference" and "observer", to mean the exact same thing, as you do, then yes, you do; and did. Need I bring another post of yours, to your attention? I mean, are you saying these things, or me, really?
And what have you proven other than the fact that your viewpoint is muddled, and confused; as should be known by the countless errors in it. I think, you think, you're playing devil's advocate, and I should admit, you're not really that good at it, and yet don't realize that it's your very own opinion that's illegitimate; and not the opposite of whatever indirect point you think you're trying to defend.