Nothing ever exists... ? - Page 6

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

You are asking illogical questions. Just because we use a variable in an equation to balance it, doesn't make the variables real or physical.

Consider the mass - energy equivalence equation: E=mc² . Just because the c² is needed to balance the equation, doesn't make the c² a real / physical entity.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

By the way, denying time of a real existence is not the same as denying the need for usage of time in equations or for that matter denying the need for time in understanding everyday events. Of course we need it. Doesn't make it real however.

You stress upon things that don't matter, like me saying spacetime is a part of GR, which is well accepted. There was no "bungle". You don't make your argument, and instead resort to personal attacks. And you still haven't provided the framework I asked for. I agree, this is futile. I will head out.

On the contrary, I went against my nature not to make personal attacks or indulge in name calling, thus far.

Stick around and don't be so anal retentive about one single math equation involving time.

If anything, we can prove that math exists more so than time, in nature. Pretty much all matter is nothing but math because ultimately a particle when not observed is a wave and a wave is nothing but a math equation.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

On the contrary, I went against my nature not to make personal attacks or indulge in name calling, thus far.

Stick around and don't be so anal retentive about one single math equation involving time.

If anything, we can prove that math exists more so than time, in nature. Pretty much all matter is nothing but math because ultimately a particle when not observed is a wave and a wave is nothing but a math equation.

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

So you are a wave to the blind guy than according to your weird definition!!

Good question (surprisingly!)

Technically speaking, a blind guy has a visual limitation, ranging from functional blindness, to partial vision loss to total blindness (no light perception). But even for the last category of people, science is revealing that they might be able to perceive light non-visually. You can Google that yourself with a simple search "can blind people detect light?"

But coming back to your question, the assertion by QM was about a particle being a wave. Not about a whole body made of gazillion such particles. Yes, I am made of particles but QM so far was only successful in establishing that subatomic particles, atoms and molecules exhibit wave-particle duality depending upon observation. The largest object that exhibited wave-particle duality thus far in experimental physics was a bucky-ball. But since everything we know of is made of particles, the theory supports that by extension all matter too exhibits wave-particle duality. Now at what point does the wave collapse into the world that you perceive and does it even collapse is complicated physics even the brilliant have a hard time understanding; but who knows, you probably might.


cant you just stick to a simple serial.. line of thought!!

I don't know what that means. It's also possible you don't know what multithreading means.

off topic: iPhone edits are messing up the quotes

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

off topic: iPhone edits are messing up the quotes

^^


See, if only you had Googled on what constitutes an observation you wouldn't be asking moronic followup questions now, would you? You probably thought an observer is a person sitting there "watching" electrons with his/her naked eye 😆 Then it probably occurred to your pea-brain that if you take away the watching part and introduce a blind guy into the picture, you would back QM into a corner!! Question then becomes, when you don't know jack sh!t, why don't you stick to topics dealing with marriages and affairs?! Hmm. Now, that's a real doozy of a puzzle.

As for multithreading, it has more to do with a "serial" thought than a cereal has to do with this topic. Again, if your stupid ass had Googled that, you would would have possibly (not probably, but possibly) understood how the concept relates to parallel execution as opposed to "serial" execution, like your stupid pun implied, but then one look at you and I could tell you would fail even an open book exam so I wouldn't expect you to gather even one tidbit of information from the information superhighway, let alone acquire any knowledge!

You talking about acquiring knowledge! 😆 😆 Hilarious! Thanks for making my day.

😆 good going guys. its great to see the passions that are unleashed by existence... or lack of it😆

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

😆 good going guys. its great to see the passions that are unleashed by existence... or lack of it😆