Prof Reza Sanaye Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 6 hours ago, dimreepr said: 6 hours ago, dimreepr said: Except what you're saying is, it's infinite because it's infinite (I'm duty bound to point that out). đ Seems to me that infinite is just another way to say "I don't know". I think a more interesting question would be, can a paradox exist in nature?   The answer to this question {{ can a paradox exist in nature? }} is YES. As things go paradoxically in logics , so do things in Mother Nature , but in a dualistically objective manner. Say, Physicalistic manner. When datawave happen to diverge from fields in which energy carriers may or may not collide , the information itself happens to get a differing reference coordinance or an identical one. It is for this reason that a certain emanation of a field can/cannot particularize itself into the format of a (sub-)particle at a certain place with a certain velocity distribution . -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 7 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said: The answer to this question {{ can a paradox exist in nature? }} is YES. As things go paradoxically in logics , so do things in Mother Nature , but in a dualistically objective manner. Say, Physicalistic manner. When datawave happen to diverge from fields in which energy carriers may or may not collide , the information itself happens to get a differing reference coordinance or an identical one. It is for this reason that a certain emanation of a field can/cannot particularize itself into the format of a (sub-)particle at a certain place with a certain velocity distribution . How is that a paradox? You expect a certain behavior based on assumption(s). If the system doesn't behave as expected it's not because theres a paradox, it's because your assumptions about the system behavior are wrong. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof Reza Sanaye Posted February 12, 2021 Author Share Posted February 12, 2021 14 minutes ago, swansont said: How is that a paradox? You expect a certain behavior based on assumption(s). If the system doesn't behave as expected it's not because theres a paradox, it's because your assumptions about the system behavior are wrong. It IS a paradox. . . . Assumptions themselves do NOT arise from any (a) prior experiential intuiting . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 3 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said: It IS a paradox. . . . Assumptions themselves do NOT arise from any (a) prior experiential intuiting . . . What exactly, then, is the paradox? It sounds like youâre describing interference. Can you use actual 21st century physics terminology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof Reza Sanaye Posted February 13, 2021 Author Share Posted February 13, 2021 Reza Sanaye + Swansont  Continued : A paradox does NOT fall merely exactly into the realm of modern physics when we come to describe and/or delineate it between us . . . There is , of course , no doubt that it has gotten physicalistic facets to it. However , this is NOT the whole story. Even the most objectivist philosophers of science in Wien Circle had to adopt the name "Logical Positivists" for themselves. This makes it absolutely clear that they felt intense need for the Logic [ or : Logics ] of their extreme version of Positivism.   On the other hand , the very widespread application of a variety of mathematical sciences in modern physics is yet another remarkable clue to the facticity that you cannot phenomenologise paradoxes only through the means of PHYSICalism . We are certainly in need of some of the most theoretical mathematical abductions and abstractions to justify our understanding of the "hardware" building up the world around us : either down to the femto- and atto-level or up at inter-galactic scales .... . ..   Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted February 13, 2021 Share Posted February 13, 2021 4 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said: On the other hand , the very widespread application of a variety of mathematical sciences in modern physics is yet another remarkable clue to the facticity that you cannot phenomenologise paradoxes only through the means of PHYSICalism . We are certainly in need of some of the most theoretical mathematical abductions and abstractions to justify our understanding of the "hardware" building up the world around us : either down to the femto- and atto-level or up at inter-galactic scales .... . .. WTF are you talking about? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof Reza Sanaye Posted February 13, 2021 Author Share Posted February 13, 2021 WTF are you talking about? (dimreepr) Excuse me . . .. I have the bad habit of NOT engaging with  swearing+bad language ................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted February 13, 2021 Share Posted February 13, 2021 (edited) 23 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said: It IS a paradox. . . . Assumptions themselves do NOT arise from any (a) prior experiential intuiting . . . Actually they might so arise. Have so not heard of the Brouwer scool of intuitionist maths ?  It is one of the principal schools of modern maths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionism  I too am 'eagerly' awaiting your demonstration of a paradox, though eagerness is beginning to wear a bit thin. Edited February 13, 2021 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof Reza Sanaye Posted February 13, 2021 Author Share Posted February 13, 2021 Yes , Lady , I have read three books on this school . .. .Am I allowed to know what your point is ??? -3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 13, 2021 Share Posted February 13, 2021 3 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said: Reza Sanaye + Swansont  Continued : A paradox does NOT fall merely exactly into the realm of modern physics when we come to describe and/or delineate it between us . . . There is , of course , no doubt that it has gotten physicalistic facets to it. However , this is NOT the whole story. Even the most objectivist philosophers of science in Wien Circle had to adopt the name "Logical Positivists" for themselves. This makes it absolutely clear that they felt intense need for the Logic [ or : Logics ] of their extreme version of Positivism.   The claim was about a paradox in nature, not in philosophy. 3 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said: On the other hand , the very widespread application of a variety of mathematical sciences in modern physics is yet another remarkable clue to the facticity that you cannot phenomenologise paradoxes only through the means of PHYSICalism . We are certainly in need of some of the most theoretical mathematical abductions and abstractions to justify our understanding of the "hardware" building up the world around us : either down to the femto- and atto-level or up at inter-galactic scales .... . .. So, no actual example, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof Reza Sanaye Posted February 13, 2021 Author Share Posted February 13, 2021 So, no actual example, then? You have DECIDED to think so . . . . -3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 Who is the guy in your avatar ? He looks wide-eyed crazy ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joigus Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 6 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said: You have DECIDED to think so . . . . And how would that go? I usually think what I think. I do not sort out what I'm going to think in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 15 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said: WTF are you talking about? (dimreepr) Excuse me . . .. I have the bad habit of NOT engaging with  swearing+bad language ................... It mean's what the feck, as in what father Ted says (and he's a catholic priest), what do you think it means? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof Reza Sanaye Posted February 14, 2021 Author Share Posted February 14, 2021 And how would that go? I usually think what I think. I do not sort out what I'm going to think in advance.....  { Joigus -- asked me--around 13 hours ago }  Well , you are a "spontaneous" thinker , Sir ...... I myself am more or less like this........ Sometimes people ignore( or : force themselves to forget about) this IMMANENT manner of thinking ......... they see / then they deny what they have realized This is unfortunate transcendence from observable "seeings" ........Going into higher r or lower hierarchies ....... Which is pest to an objective mind . ......And , is , of course , revocable/removable   Sort of Otherism  Especially towards new-comers ......   there is no Crazy Avatar involved .......... There are , instead , fresh modalities of scientific thinking ; though U have unfortunately decided to ridicule it , to apply the language of foolery satire, Dear Sir ......... but again I feel I have to thank U for your attention : reading my material and bothering to write ........... -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 On 2/13/2021 at 5:25 AM, Prof Reza Sanaye said: The answer to this question {{ can a paradox exist in nature? }} is YES. By definition that is wrong. If scientists perceive a paradox in nature, you can bet your short n curlies that it is because they themselves have made a mistake as to the nature of nature, which is nature. đ 9 minutes ago, beecee said: By definition that is wrong. If scientists perceive a paradox in nature, you can bet your short n curlies that it is because they lack the full knowledge as to a particular situation, and/or they themselves have made a mistake as to the nature of nature, which is nature. đ  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joigus Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 6 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said: Well , you are a "spontaneous" thinker , Sir ...... I myself am more or less like this........ Sometimes people ignore( or : force themselves to forget about) this IMMANENT manner of thinking ......... they see / then they deny what they have realized This is unfortunate transcendence from observable "seeings" ........Going into higher r or lower hierarchies ....... Which is pest to an objective mind . ......And , is , of course , revocable/removable (My emphasis.) You are like what sometimes people ignore? What does that mean? Can you keep attention to what you're saying from one line to the next, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now