The control of one subatomic particle

Geez Fil! I am trying to ignore this silly thread, I really am, but this made me laugh too much to let go.

You philosophers insist on misusing mathematical and scientific terms. Bayesian space time of truth? Really?

..oh you....just go away you dumb azz! The door is at your left...sheeesh donkeys this late at night, shoo! Go find your own turf Bubba!

Actually, I think I was here first. This thread started out on the pretext that it was a science thread. I am a bit surprised that you and Fresco are still here.

...man what the frack you doing here? You couldn't start to phantom the relation of Parmenides Einstein and the Wittgenstein trap... not in your wildist stoned night. Just step back n sit.

I know at least as much about Wittgenstein as you know about Bayesian space time.

This thread shows the danger of confusing Science and Philosophy. I make no pretext that I know very much about philosophy (other than a couple of courses and the books and articles that caught my attention).

I know Science. Philosophy isn't that important to me. I came to this thread because it has "subatomic particle" in the title, and is tagged "Quantum Mechanics". These are scientific terms.

Go see the latest debate on the illusive nature of time in this year world Science Festival you pretentious ignoramus. Your knowledge of Science is a square brick of fixed memorizations and of Philosophy a rotund ZERO!

No need for name calling, Fil. Your knowledge of my knowledge of science comes down to a personal attack, right? I can disagree with you without attacking your intelligence (this is a point that I think would be more philosophy than science, but what do I know).

This is a four page thread now that started out talking about a misunderstanding of a scientific principle. Then it evolved to a discussion on the meaning of words, and finally to childish insults. Is this where philosophy brings us?

If this were a scientific discussion, rather than a philosophical one, we would now be discussing experiments and mathematical models. Maybe this thread would have progressed were that the case.

ooh...how naive of you about intellectual life, almost inocent. We just had the meat of humanity served in the last couple of posts. Go dinner with statues that fit your boredom, I stick with people...

I will let you get back to your intellectual cannibalism then. The phrase "Bayesian spacetime of Truth" made me laugh. That is all.

Oh frack it I take you right away you imbecilode!

Do you understand what is the power set of all possible meaningful statements? Yes or No?
Do you even understand the question ant?
If you cant see how a frozen picture of the power set of all spacetime, the order of all possible meaningful statements, in its geometric alignment was meant to be used in the sentence, you are really, I mean really really dumb!
Don't try ever read a masterpiece novel you will be puzzled for life.
If you could see yourself from above you would probably throw yourself out of a bridge...

I guess I am an imbecilode Maybe you could clarify a few things.

- What is the difference between a "frozen picture" and a normal picture? Aren't pictures generally regarded as "fixed"?

- I am assuming that "ant" is another insult. Am I right, or is there a "question ant" that I am not understanding?

- Are you defining "spacetime" as a set of meaningful statements?

- How are statements, no matter how meaningful they are, placed in a "geometric alignment"?

- I recently read "The Dispossessed" by Ursula LeGuin. I enjoyed it very much. Does this count as a "masterpiece novel"?

- It seems like I have upset you. Do you really want me to kill myself? That seems a little extreme. Or, is "throwing myself out of a bridge" metaphorical?

1 - A picture of the all spaces and all times, a picture not of NOW but of all History. The tautology intends to provide an envisionement of spacetime as one timeless object at once, or eternal if you prefer. Bonus points you get to skip the motion towards out of spacetime meaningless nothingness where with motion things are suposedly expanding into. Nothingness doesn't have properties to allow anything to expand throught it. Now aplly that concept to the alignement, order, of all possible statements with meaning. An algorithm or optimum sequence of all of them, in sum, their geometry. Another useful metaphor would be the "frozen picture of motion, a movie". Get it? probably not...you missed the juice n got stuck with the metaphor...typical.

2 - The power set is the set of all possible set arrangements. Yes it is a set of sets...

3 - Its not an insult just a sad fact, it could have been me...

4 - Statements have in spacetime a sequence just like a novel has a sequence of statements...did you even finished basic school? Miracle!

5 - You tell me, was it? Sum it up how did it affected you? It depends on which "animal" is reading ya know...

6 - Its an hypothetical that could be valid to anyone in relative comparison with a superior intelligence. Nobody likes to be small not even on relative terms. I supose its true there can always be dumber. Try teach Trump n you will feel happy....

Good nigh, late here.

Interesting. Fil is invoking Tarski's work on languages, but he is somehow conflating it with "spacetime". It is like he put a couple of scholarly works into a blender and then typed whatever poured out.

Mathematically speaking, a power set is the set of every subset of a given set. The metaphor you are setting up doesn't make any sense... especially since you are equating "statements" with "spacetime".

I don't know what you think you mean by "arrangement". There is no "arrangement" in a set. By definition, the order of a set doesn't matter. Again, I think you are alluding to Tarski's work on language (am I wrong). But somehow you have confused it with spacetime, which is a Physics term.

You seem to be generating a power set of insults . It would make your argument stronger if you could make a few more points that didn't include personal attacks.

Yes statements have an order sequencing in spacetime as they are uttered! What else eh??? That was what confused you? Dear Lord are you so dumb that you think Minkowski spacetime can only be applied to stars, planets, and particles??? ...bejeeeesus how squary your mind works...The topic touches the problem of contingency or necessity on everything including things like abstract objects or sentences their ordering and meaning...not that you get what I am talking about, that much is clear...

Mathematically speaking, "sets" have no order. That's what confused me. Of course if you can make up your own definition for the word "set" if you want.

Scientifically Speaking, in Physics, "spacetime" also has a meaning that scientists understand. Again, you can make up your own definition for the word... but don't be surprised if scientists are confused. If you can just redefine words in Philosophy, it is no wonder that you never reach a useful conclusion that you can all agree upon.

In science, we use careful, precise terms that are back up by mathematics. In a discussion on Science, if there is any confusion, we can go to the mathematics and look at experimental data.

This is why science accomplishes useful things. Airplanes work, because the Physics behind them is understood by scientists and engineers. There are testable scientific principles that are not in dispute.

Imagine stepping on an airplane designed by philosophers! Fortunately they would be too busy calling each other "stupid" to even get to the point where the result was dangerous .

...oh every set has a factual arrangement you idiot. Do you buy every nonsense that they sell you at school??? maybe you really believe a colection of things is in a quantum superposition...frack its funny that your "science languaging" is comedy at work. Did you ever stop to analyse the phrasing or did you just regurgitate what ppl told you back in Uni?

Spacetime encompasses everything that has, is, or will happen, including particles, planets, stars, people, thoughts, sentences, and abstractions, as they emerge on a point of reference in said spacetime. Don't be opaque nor invoke science languaging to obfuscate obvious clear cut statements. Its not my fault that your mind has a small field of objects to fit the definition of what spacetime has or has not. Its obviously idiotic your last post!

The scientific definition of spacetime is much more limited, and much more useful. There are are mathematical ideas here, for example manifolds, that aren't just guesses... they can be used to to make predictions that can be tested by experiment.

In science we can describe the behavior of the Universe in a way that can be used to make predictions. Scientists can predict the exact position of Venus at any given time. They can send messages using the states of electrons... the technology you are using right now. They can send robots to Mars.

All of these useful things are possible because we limit our definitions. We don't allow our ideas to mean "everything including thoughts". If you define a term to mean anything... it becomes useless for making any testable predictions, or building any useful technology. The word "set" has a mathematical meaning, which means that we can apply proofs and use it to make models. If you change the definition of "set" to match your philosophical whims, the proofs are no longer valid. And that's exactly what you are doing when you say that sets have an "arrangement".

This is why while Philosophers are busy insulting each other and anyone who disagrees with them, scientists are busy curing diseases, finding planets and making cars that can drive themselves.

Oh frack...for real? What do you think a thought is in physics eh? When people speak or write for that matter, are they not spending energy, emitting sounds, information, entropy, interacting with the environment, which by the way includes other beings??? What the frack ya talking about? Who gave you the college degree? Mighty God!!!