Genady

If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

No, they can not

Why?

What is "infinitely dense point"? No, it is not. No, we would not.

🤣

... ... The Monty Python's argument sketch comes to mind.

Is this combination of she/his intentional? I would hope so. Thanks again.

Just a friendly reminder: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/132167-what-is-the-nature-of-our-existence/?do=findComment&comment=1246935

Downloading now. Thanks. Why didn't I know about it yesterday, the Bird Count Day here?

Thank you, @Eise. I'd try a different approach: are you familiar with, and if so, what is your opinion on PhilPapers: Online Research in Philosophy?

I didn't find it but since most Newton's derivations in Principia were geometrical, I assume that the product rule's derivation was geometrical as well. It could be as simple as this:

Thank you again. If I took that class with Agassi now, I'd have a lot of questions to talk to him about. Unfortunately, at that time I was too focused on my own wrong ideas related to philosophy of technology. While writing my previous post I learned that he died a year ago. He was very kind and very sharp.

Yes. And mathematics. Thank you. Just have looked at it in amazon. Have several concerns: 1. Although it technically falls into the range of "past decades", it is older than I'd like. 2. The amazon description says about the book's topic, "whether quantum mechanics gives a complete account of microphysical reality", which is not what I expect in case of "no philosopher today sees philosophy as a way to empirical truths". 3. $80 paperback, no Kindle version. Thank you. Some 35+ years ago I took (and successfully passed) a semester class in philosophy of science from Prof. Agassi in Tel-Aviv University. We went through a set of schools of thought. I would like to learn about new, later ideas.

I (not a scientist) am unaware of these changes either but would like to get a taste of them. Any recommendations?

They did not know what is wrong in their logic, and I pointed that out.

Find out what "expanding universe" means in physics, not in your imagination.

I second this (regardless of his opinions about philosophy.)

That's why I don't argue about it. I don't like my face blue. LOL

I don't know. Occam tells me, it's nothing.

Exactly so. A value of a function being undefined somewhere is often part of a function's definition. It does not break math or anything. A singularity exists, by definition A notion of a particle "being there" is undefined, by definition

Nothing. The 4D-spacetime curvature becomes infinite. So what? The intrinsic curvature at the vertex of a 2D-cone is infinite, too.

From what I heard and read from him, I am sure he knows and understands this very well.

Free entertainment. Even leaves one with a fuzzy feeling that they learned something.

Roadside Picnic - Wikipedia

As mentioned in the link given above, Since 1 Planck mass is approximately 21.76 micro-grams, I've posted this: