ALine

can I get a picture of both the top and side views of the marine compass you want to be using along with a top and side view of the plastic disk thing?

Ok sorry about that. I need to learn how to speak more clearly and right now I do not feel as if I am doing so. Is it possible to remove this thread?

What I formulate this arguement it is not on the grounds of stating an absolute, whereas for the purpose of questioning and developing new ideas. This is only a hypothetical, used simply as a means of connecting definitions and ideas which are connected to the definitions and ideas of knowledge and imagination. Imagimation definition the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses Knowledge definition (#2.) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation It appears as if, from my current understanding, that imagination can be related to " the mind" perspective from philosophy while knowledge can be related to "the body" perspective from philosophy. What if the ideas formed from the imagination are used to add to knowledge while also at the same time the "body" is obtaining knowledge from its sensory inputs? While all at the same time the knowledge is used by the imagination to formulate new ideas.

But what else do we have if not our sensory input? If for this specific instance we define sensory input as being the observations of external systems interacting with....ourselves. Ok before we continue, I have a very bad habit of using words in the wrong places so you will have to please excuse me of this. What do you define as being "rational thought" and "sensory input"? Are you defining rational thought as being the use of previously obtained knowledge for the purpose of preventing miss interpretation between you and a person you are speaking with? Or are you defining it as just being that rational thought. Also are laking more of a literal of figurative look at sensory input in regards to making a generalizing relationship between it and philosophy?

Oh yes, sorry about that. I did not think about that. When I began this topic thread, it was for thinking about languages from the perspective of an observing "a self" vs.( i am using vs. as a symbol for comparison) other selfs who also formulates languages which I am defining for this specific case as being "a selfs environment" and how those perspectives gave rise to a "precieved reality." That precieved reality being either seen as being imaginary to some while being real to others. However I have not considered the english language as being both abstract and defined. So would that mean that our precieved realities are a combination of both real observations and imaginary observations? I am defining real in this specific instance as being self observed and imaginary as being environmentally observed and then that environment informs a self being an observing person.

Yes I was refering to simply the development of language and not actually changing a "physical thing." That would be nieve to believe in such a case. Unless you consider moving your arms or the act of writing or building a car or drawing a picture to be a method of altering reality by using your imagination to develop a new language to add to your knowledge which can be used to add to your imagination to physically alter your surrounding reality which loops again and a result of such a looping could be used to make say technology things to physically alter our surroundings in order make ourselves more accustomed to our surrounding reality.

Yes but what if that understanding of reality leads to the defining of reality?

My position is that this arguement is pointless for the fact that by defining a God like entity you are defining an absoluye observer which is why they define him as being, "everywhere at ome time." If you accept this model then the arguement ends there. If something is observing everything then that would mean that everything is always known as has always been there due to him having observed it. So no amount of reasoning can go against an arguement such as this due to a God being all observing so everything would always exist even if no one is around to observe it. If you deny this model then there is no absolute observer which means that everything become uncertain if you are no longer observing it. If you accept the model set by religion then there is always an observer and everything is known due to that observer being in every dimension including time. If you deny the model set by religion then there are only observers when those observers "exist." These observers being humans. If we do not observe it then it does not exist. Therefore it up to the individual who wishes to choose between either of these models to decide which they prefer. So it all comes down to a matter of choice between ideas. Your choice is for you to decide and not for others to decide for you. Thats it. These seperate ideas do not mix because they are seperate in nature. One is neither correct nor in correct, they simply are. On top of this the arguement which is used are themselves meaningless, where logic is a construct used to understand what we understand. Any and all concepts which we create and assume not to create may simply be a resultant of observation and the comparison between previous observations with current observations. Even if you say you do not argue against the concept of a God, the mear mentioning of him, any and every attempt to communicate with him is therefore invalid due to the use of an observed concepts of him existing. Going back to my initial arguement, an individual cannot define something as being an absolute, even something as being analogous to being an absolutes absolute because for something to be considered "real", in any case, it must be observed. Now if you are describing a feeling as being a God then there is no problem in this. However making a blanketing statement, in general, such as "something is real for everything and exists in all things" is a BIG problem. You, at this point in general, are defining an absolute truth without observation. This goes against what truth IS and its designed objective in general. Redefining it for a specific instanc3 does not change its agreed upon definition. Changing it only adds confusion. And even if you do not change it, in general, using the statements of other who have changed it, no matter how influential, does not change the agreed upon definition unless everyone agrees to it.

It would allow for a user to create a new node from a specific programming file type, such as python, and then it would allow for the user to connect the inputs and outputs from these developed programming nodes visually.

If you treat everything as a unit or variable then you must define observable absolutes in order to work with those newly developed variable. Such as observing a car. If it is your first time seeing it then you must define it as type of unit in reference to dimensional analysis like how voltage is a unit which describes an observed phenomenon. However these defined units are not in anyway absolute. They are simply describers. Saying that they are absolute would present a paradox where, "which came first; the definition or the observed thing being defined. One would, I would bet, argue for the second. However in making the statement, " this thing exists because of it being able to be observed and some how "knowing" that it will always be there even without observation is a error in reasoning due to very fundamental levels of defining existance. Like if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound. Well one would answer "yes" however if I had never told you that the tree fell would it make a sound then. One would again argue yes on the grounds of someone knowing that the tree had fallen. Well what if no one had ever existed to define what a tree was or even what a sound was. Would the tree have made a sound. My arguement would be that at that point then no. Because the things defining the things that they observe are no longer present. Existance is dependent upon observation. If you are not observing it then you cannot define it and therefore it does not exist. Even if you argue that it still does exist then I would formulate a rebutle asking you to, " show me something that does not exist using something that does not exist " or simply "show me nothing using nothing and tell me how you made that nothing something using that nothings nothingness.

Nope, just curious to see how people compare with one another.

https://www.deviantart.com/verauko/art/Imagination-vs-Reality-2-213904268 here ya go I would like to wait until there are other answers at this time, however we can talking about it more in another thread Naw man, my fault for not using the correct language to fully convey my meaning. I need to work on that.

It gives a aesthetic representation of the idea of what is being asked. Like a artistic poster describing an event which is to take place. Its only purpose is to give someone something nice to look at while at the same time acting as comedic relief to introduce the reader to what is being asked. If it is a problem I can remove it.

I would like to start a new discussion on the topic of what is defined as being imaginary vs what is defined as being real However for this discussion I would like for you to only answer the following questions and then to compare and contrast personally with others who have also answered these questions. the only rules and regulations of this discussion that I ask for you to follow are as followed (1) Post the answer to the question for others to see. (2) Compare and contrast your answered with others to find similarities and differences. (3) Do not question another persons definition of reality and/or imagination, this would negate the purpose of this thread. (4) if you wish to discuss a specific topic manner pertaining to a certain belief or if you wish to discuss anything further please do so outside of this thread. (5) all of science forums rules and regulations still apply so please take a look at them before post, the created of this website worked hard to develop them. Q 1: what is the definition of something being real? Q 2: what is the definition of something being imaginary? Q 3: what is your definition of something being real? Q 4: what is your definition of something being imaginary? Q 5: how does the definition of something being real or imaginary compare with your definition of something being real or imaginary?

I think the question that you are searching for is "how" and not "why" Asking the question "why" becomes an endless search for meaning of what is real vs. what is imaginary. This attempt to solve this "Real" vs. "Imaginary" paradox begins to cause the mind to fall into eventual insanity. It is similar to trying to find a point a circle while you are on the circle if that makes any sense. However by asking the question "how" and working within the boundaries of the reality which has been created to assist you in understanding the world around you, you will begin to see the analogous circle I had previously mentioned as being a circle. So in response to your question, "why this speed is the limit" I will respond with 2 questions of my own. Question 1: How did you ask yourself the question of "why this is the speed of light"? Question 2: How can you use the answer to question 1 to help you develop new ideas using the question being asked in question 1? kind of hurts the brain doesn't it, sure hurts mine. ...unless you were simply asking "why this is the speed of light" in regards to the language used in physics then I probably answered the wrong thing here....

Oh, no. The image that is being shown is a graphic I came up with to help better illustrate the idea of what I am searching for so that it can assist others in searching for what I have described. Sorry about that

I am trying to find a Node Editor GUI, preferably for python, which would allow the creation of new nodes from certain selected folders and files which already have code inside of them.

I am going to give a generalizing statement from only reading the introductory thread post. By assigning an absolute "truth" you give rise to the development of further absolute truths which are un-questionable and assumably invaluable. This makes the entirety of science become a groundless belief system which has a static beginning and end. There is no such thing as an absolute truth, whereas there is only current truth.

Larger brains are probably simply a by-product of there larger sizes. It may simply be a result of evolution analogously "taking" them into a path which favored larger sizes and as a result, all of their organs scaled in size. So there may not be any intrinsic advantage for having such a large sized brain, whereas it is only a "scaling up" due to other organs scaling up as well. So a larger heart requires more information being sent and therefore the requirement of a larger brain.

I mean you already have the name so you are already halfway there. Just learn about some stuff, figure out if you want to work for yourself or for someone else like a university. After that, just live your life trying to find the answers to the universe.

Thinking about getting a Micro atx board and making this bad boy a portable gaming tablet with Nvidia graphics card and Intel i7 core processor.

Ok so I am in South Carolina and was wanting to watch to some movies during the hurricane inside of my makeshift bunker I converted from a closet and now I am at the stage of having a bug out bag almost created, a bed, video games, board games, food and water enough for 2 weeks, a hand crack makeshift generator I made out of an old saw za, mini light bulbs I created from led's and soldered with some batteries and resistors, and a large 12 v back up battery. Was going to use cars but I am sure parents would not allow this. Right now I am trying to figure out how to convert dc to ac so that the device which is designed for ac and be able to be used. I am making a double relay circuit now to act as the switches and it is going along pretty nicely. Do not have an oscilloscope so its all pretty much guesswork, but hey that's hobo tech for you

Ok so I remember asking this a while back in speculation, however, I never got a response so I am posting it here because the reason why I posted in speculation was that I did not think it was fully physics related. So my question is again, are our models of reality based on probability because we cannot observe the universe at certain scales due the things that we need to observe messing up measurements like light and atom particles. Or is it the other way around? Being that we cannot observe things at such small scales because of the probability and uncertainty of the universe as a whole?

ok so since the last update I have gone through 2 versions. I am not able to get images up because I cannot find my phone. So for the newest version, I removed the Arduino Uno from the build entirely for the time being until I can incorporate an idea which involves using a microcontroller control network. So far I have been using Dropbox as a server between 2 of these devices however that got full so now I am switching to one drive which I am almost done doing. I have successfully been able to map a drive, that being the raspberry pi, to a laptop using samba. Next, I am going to link that raspberry pi to another raspberry pi, however, I just need to get the other raspberry pi first. So yeah that's my update. See ya.