subconscious wrote:big ol' difference between vocabulary and paradigm
Yes well a paradigm is a model isn't it. The mind would be useless to the preservation of the body if it failed to model its surroundings effectively. Science makes it possible to enhance the accuracy of that model and we can test that accuracy by observing that the predictions of our models are indeed what we observe to happen.
oh, I see..by "science", you mean the ability to define words and concepts in a manner that best fits your narrative. ...the rest of us call that moving the goal posts
So describing water flowing downhill or apples falling to the ground is "moving the goal posts" is it? I thought they were observations.
again, "verifiable" becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. You "verifying" that 2+2=4 by adding 1+1+1+1 does not make 4 objective, or "real", or even verified.
So observation is a self fulfilling prophecy is it?
It is objective because we can all agree on the outcome. That is what objective means. You do not get to redefine the English language. A number is real. Show me a number that can exist without a mind and a mind that can exist without a brain and you have an argument. What you lack is an observation of that which the rest of us refer to as evidence.
Assuming an apple will fall every time is not 100% because every apple has not been observed doing the fall or the not fall....again, probability
Again the mind models our environment or else it contributes nothing to our survival. Quantum probability in the macroscopic world is certainty. It only becomes significant in the microscopic realm and then it still follows a distribution. Observation is all that the mind has to work with. You are free to ignore observation and assume that that which is unobserved exists but it adds nothing to the model the mind creates to deal with the real world that determines your ability to survive.
oh, you mean like the Leidenfrost Effect?
You'll note that the surface was not flat but cut with a sawtooth pattern which allowed the laws of Newton to take effect to drive the droplet uphill. But of course your denial of the observable world would never let you get to the point of formulating the laws of Newton in the first place. Why did you bother to crawl out of the ocean and onto the land?
Or were you predictably unaware of the subterranean rivers rivers of Antarctica?
You are referring to pressure being able to overcome the effects of gravity? Yes water can be shot in an upward direction from a firehose. Very good. Why didn't you mention evaporation while you were at it. Did you learn how to debate from Kent Hovind?
anyone with a super collider? Yep, no limited group of people there
Anyone who manages to build a supercollider will get the same results is the point that is important. Do try to focus on what it is that matters.
you didn't know the difference to begin with
I am the one that is ok with observations. You seem to be the one that wishes to discredit them.
yeh, that doesn't exist. ..what you mean is that little box made of your presuppositions
No that little box determined by definition due to what is of significance to us as bodies with minds that model the surrounding world. If it doesn't exist go ahead and ignore it by jumping in front of a car traveling down the highway.
Then it would be nice if someone from your camp addressed some of it instead of ignoring it.
for example?
Pick any of my posts in the Celestial board that you disagree with and answer the data presented. No one has done so as yet.
Have you and Franktalk formed a solipsism meetup yet? You could debate each others existence.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
