Measuring the immeasurable.

[Hippasos]

If we cannot directly measure or observe C it doesn't mean C doesn't exist.

If we can directly measure and observe A and B it always means A and B exists.

Lets say it so happens that B becomes measurable and observable only and only when A and C somehow interacts and we don't know that.

Let D = A + B

D is then defined, measured and therefore existent by A and B.

So we don't necessarily have to directly measure or observe C but it is still needed to get D.

Would we know that something is missing in definition of D?

Do You consider C to be significant?

[Chronos]

Try logic operators and see what you get.

[Pinu7]

Assuming the universe operates logically, if D follows from A and B(which are true), then D is true.


If we can directly measure and observe A and B it always means A and B exists.

This is not scientific, but can you support that claim?

[Hippasos]

Assuming the universe operates logically, if D follows from A and B(which are true), then D is true.


This is not scientific, but can you support that claim?

No I can't, but I did my best.

[flatmaster]

Let D = A + B


A, B, and D are ambiguous events. How do you add events?

[the_awesome]

Let D = A + B
don't necessarily have to directly measure or observe C but it is still needed to get D.
You make no sense. That's just contradictory.

Anywayz, you can't prove that C exists. It's like trying to prove the theory of evolution, you can't prove it because not only is it untestable - it is based on other theory's.

[JoeDawg]

Do You consider C to be significant?

Only if D is my lunch.