Quote:
Quote by: SoylentGreen  One is one relative to zero only when the numerals have been assigned a value. In this case the numerical value of 1 is greater than zero. That is maths.
But when you assign another value to one, like one is everything then it is no longer maths but a discussion in meta-physics where we can challenge values such as everything and eternity.
You are using meta-physical symbolism when attempting to assign numerals values that can not be tested.
That without a link it is so much questionable hear say so I will not waste my time with it either.
How am I fluffing off adaption? My explanation was as you just said a group of separate but similar animals facing similar changes at similar times made relatively similar adaptions.
Isn't it you who is trying to say that all the similarities don't count because it was god that told them to wash the potato when you say:
They all learned because the lesson was similar to all.
I will look forward to finding the holes in your theory. |
So you do not think that something is of greater value then nothing, gee, I would hate to see your home budget accounting.
Of course it can be tested. Remove single cell life organizems from water and you got nothing but water, remove the water and you got nothing but space. Remove everything containing that space and you got nothing but nothing. Not even space because space is relative to what it is compared with, which gives it a dimension with boarders.
The last part of the test would be impossible to do physically but in principle it makes sense.
But of course if both groups did not have access to the potatos or the shells then they could not have done the same thing. It is always possible that all the ones in the 2nd group just happen to come up with the bright idea which the first monkey did in the first group. But what would cause them to have that same ability to conduct such a experiment between the two groups? What would cause them both to make the same connection between eating a potato after soaking it in water to make it soft? Being that the first monkey found it out accidently ( I would assume). The uniformity of accidental behavorism is somewhat unlikely to ocur in the way you discribe it. Where as the one I presented makes sense and also made sense to the people involved in observing those monkeys in that epidemology experiment.
You kept demanding links and when I provided one you ignored it and made no comment. Proof that finding links for you is a waste of time.
Well, if you do find a black hole in my explaination then it will just gobble up your so-called enligtened solar system of ideas.
Chomp chomp, the gator ate your granny.
Epidemology is not sound scince as it just provides clues to be interpreted in the most logical way possible. If you have two interpretations then you can select which one you prefer to use. But the evidence (observations) still would support both findings.
At which point bias would be the only determining factor for creating a conclusion.
Nothin' is still nothin' and something is still something. 1 - 1 is still 0. Call it metaphyical or call it basic math, the result is the same.
I assigned the symbol 0 to mean nothing and assigned "thought" to the symbol 1, opening the potential for two thoughts, which would multiply until you have enough thoughts to consitute a mind. AKA - Intelligence. and then added that those thoughts orbited in the mind around a still center which is the point of nothingness. As in the theroy of relativity. There-by establishing in principle the contrast for something that then can be called "space". A space that could be occupied.
Other then you trying to dodge that by naming it metaphysical, you did not prove that anything is basically default in that particular outline. Anyone in gradeschool can go around calling something funny names, I was hoping to have a debate based on a higher level of maturity.