0
   

Is no bias at odds with relativity and difference both being true?

 
 
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 12:40 pm
Assuming that relativity is a state of error, because infinity isn't real, can both relativity and difference be resolved without bias?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 2,460 • Replies: 36
No top replies

 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 02:19 pm
@Thomas33,
Your presupposition that "relativity is a state of error," the remaining statements are moot.
Thomas33
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 02:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Can you just clarify that connection?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 02:32 pm
@Thomas33,
It's because relativity is a theory.
Thomas33
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 03:07 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I just mean relative; being identical to something else.
If symmetry and its absence are both true, is bias required?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 04:22 pm
@Thomas33,
Most people don't value symmetry or its absence unless it's observable.
Thomas33
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 04:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
But relative to the source, encompassing life.
The source can be X, and reality Y and G. Y and G are symmetry, but X needs - Y and G as well as Y and G; can Y and G be both inversion and distinction without bias?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 04:44 pm
@Thomas33,
But Y and G are already based on bias.
Thomas33
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 04:49 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I can see the logic of what you mean, but can you just demonstrate the bias?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 05:32 pm
@Thomas33,
Sure. Whether it's Y or G, the people who are aware of the issue (or what ever that provides a choice) will pick one or the other. They are based on one's perception of what he deems a better choice. Some people like vodka, and others like whiskey. Some even like both (like me). As a first choice, one must pick one or the other. It's Y or G, and Y and G. But Y and G must come in sequence.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 07:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You could mix the vodka with the Whiskey... and you could do it at the same time pouring the vodka with one hand while simultaneously pouring the whiskey with the other so that neither is first. There could even be some absinthe in the glass first. And the glass could be marked with a picture of a canary and placed on a red table in a living room with a bay window.

Why is this silly thread tagged as "Science"?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 07:54 pm
@maxdancona,
With my unsteady hands and poor sight, I'll get it all wrong!
0 Replies
 
Thomas33
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 07:54 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I agree with your rationale.
Y and G need to have no order in order to allow the freedom to pick. However, the natural mystery that arises from this is that if selection is because of equality, how is it justified if the outcome of selection is dependent on difference?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 07:55 pm
@Thomas33,
The difference is based on the observer, not the Y or G.
Thomas33
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 08:20 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The observer is Y and G. At least it is relative to the source.
The relativity of observer and observed is separate from God, yet God as meant to be exempt from the paradigm of relativity is nevertheless reflected.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 08:31 pm
@Thomas33,
You need to define what they are observing, and what their conclusions are.
Thomas33
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2016 08:34 am
@cicerone imposter,
G = Y
Y = G

Y = (G = Y)
G = (G = Y)

To know of relativity requires bias. To know that Y is itself being G means that Y and G can't exist by the same amount, relative to God.

I think what I'm trying to understand is if God needs to be biased in order for equality to be true.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2016 11:01 am
@Thomas33,
When you bring god into the equation, it's already a lost cause, because you can't prove your god exists. 0=0.
Thomas33
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2016 01:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Erase God, and instead just Y = (G = Y).
The same problem occurs. The knowledge of equality literally requires imbalance - can this pattern ever be overruled?

G + Y = (G = Y) fails to represent equality, as it leaves the uncertain knowledge that the equality would persist were one of the constituents to vanish.
G = Y = (G = Y) is just absolute disparity.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2016 04:28 pm
@Thomas33,
Quote:
The knowledge of equality literally requires imbalance - can this pattern ever be overruled?

I'm not sure you're using the correct word. "Overruled" sounds political rather than sociological.

Equality will never be achieved. There may be an appearance of equality, but that's because of laws against discrimination in developed countries. If you understand that blacks are treated differently in this country based on their skin color, you will begin to understand why equality will never happen.
You have heard of 'white supremacist' and the kKK, haven't you? They still exist even though our country has laws against discrimination.

We see too often a white policeman shooting a black man without cause.
http://mappingpoliceviolence.org/unarmed/
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Alternative Einstein's riddle answer - Discussion by cedor
Urgent !!! Puzzle / Riddle...Plz helpp - Question by zuzusheryl
Bottle - Question by Megha
"The World's Hardest Riddle" - Discussion by maxlovesmarie
Hard Riddle - Question by retsgned
Riddle Time - Question by Teddy Isaiah
riddle me this (easy) - Question by gree012
Riddle - Question by georgio7
Trick Question I think! - Question by sophocles
Answer my riddle - Question by DanDMan52
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is no bias at odds with relativity and difference both being true?
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/29/2017 at 11:07:49