Russell's Paradox: The Achille's Heel of Solipsism?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
And the (amount of) time that they 'Exist' is...? and when integrated into protons they build, what? structure? rigidity? the "Illusion" thereof, solidity, with respect to time...Hummm

That last option: an Illusion.

Aside from that, it is a fundamental particle in an Atom.

No it's not. Hadrons of quarks and the orbiting leptons are fundamental (which means the most elementary of particles).

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
That last option: an Illusion. One that apprently according to you? brings with it No solidity, but wait Hey you CAN bang your head into a concrete wall, and it is solid, so how does all that mushyness result in solid things?

No it's not. Hadrons of quarks and the orbiting leptons are fundamental Cheese, you are condescending (which means the most elementary of particles).

Funny last time I look Protons were considered Fundamental particles cause to be a particle it needs last some time, you know, exist!...the quarks, once removed from within a "proton" decompose quite quickly, their true nature being one of instablity, it is only in the Harmonic resonance of a protonic arrangement that stability is achieved.

BTW Just cause they's mushy outside of a proton doesn"t prove that when acting as one as a proton that they are still mushy, their collective resonant harmonic could easily be working together to afford/generate the stability, that Protons demonstrate.

If you don't believe in solid, you live in a dream world...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
One that apprently according to you? brings with it No solidity, but wait Hey you CAN bang your head into a concrete wall, and it is solid, so how does all that mushyness result in solid things?

I didn't say that "solidity" didn't exist, but that atoms are not solid. There's a huge difference, since I already defined "solid" as a state of many particles held in rigid formation.

Cheese, you are condescending

Look who's talkin'! You are the last person who should lecture me about condescension when every post you've ever directed at me has been dripping with sardonic comments.

Funny last time I look Protons were considered Fundamental particles cause to be a particle it needs last some time, you know, exist!...the quarks, once removed from within a "proton" decompose quite quickly...

"Quite quickly"...and that's not existing for "some time"?

BTW Just cause they's mushy outside of a proton doesn"t prove that when acting as one as a proton that they are still mushy, their collective resonant harmonic could easily be working together to afford/generate the stability, that Protons demonstrate.

If you don't believe in solid, you live in a dream world...

Don't waste my time, prove it or drop it. I could just as easily have said "if you believe that atoms are solid you are living in a dream world", but this gets us nowhere.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
I didn't say that "solidity" didn't exist, but that atoms are not solid. There's a huge difference, since I already defined "solid" as a state of many particles held in rigid formation.
there's that Ego...P.S. what if I disagree with your definition of a solid, and stick with what it has always been, you know 'Solid' as in it 'lasts' (holds its shape) for a long time, like a Proton does...

Look who's talkin'! You are the last person who should lecture me about condescension when every post you've ever directed at me has been dripping with sardonic comments.
Hummm, actually only following you...just less...
"Quite quickly"...and that's not existing for "some time"? Which is why I had asked you if you knew how long, but you evaded responce to the question...

Don't waste my time, prove it or drop it. Prove what? that the Universe Speaks 'Solid', it's done! and I have NO NEED to prove what has already been proven! By 'Others' BTW, I just know of there work... I could just as easily have said "if you believe that atoms are solid you are living in a dream world", but this gets us nowhere.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
I didn't say that "solidity" didn't exist, but that atoms are not solid. There's a huge difference, since I already defined "solid" as a state of many particles held in rigid formation.

But on page 6 you said, and I "quote" you

Originally posted by mentat
Mr.Robin Parsons,
I'm not sure if Mumeishi's link dealt with this point, but I think your error (on the point of "solidity") comes from the misconception that atoms are solid masses. This is not the case. A solid mass is something wherein the particles making it up stay together in rigid formation (or nearly rigid formation). This is not the case with an atom, since: 1) An atom's electrons (as well as the quarks in each hadron, to some extent) move about rather freely; and 2) Quantum weirdness comes into play much more strongly at this size, and thus no hadron or electron can be said to be in one place at any given time.

There is no solidity here. In fact, it could reasonably be argued that nothing ever really is "solid" but that solidity is an illusion that only works on huge beings (like humans) who very rarely have to deal with uncertainty or the fluidity of all subatomic particles.


__________________
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."

-Albert Einstein

so...apparently you don't behave "solidly" as you completely contradict yourself!

Have a nice evening...and please, don't waste any of your time...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
But on page 6 you said, and I "quote" you



so...apparently you don't behave "solidly" as you completely contradict yourself!

Solidity can indeed be an illusion, if you take the solidity of atoms as indicative of the actual nature of solids. Since I do not make this assumption I can allow for the existence of solidity, but not in atoms.

Have a nice evening...and please, don't waste any of your time...

A nice evening to you also (I'm getting off-line now), and forgive my comment about wasting my time, but I just couldn't take the level of sarcasm you'd been using. Sarcasm only gives the idea that you don't care about what you are saying, and are arguing for the sake of arguing. If this is not true of you then I apologize for my misconception, and advise you to lower the level of sarcasm so as not to mislead someone else into my same mistake.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
Solidity can indeed be an illusion, if you take the solidity of atoms as indicative of the actual nature of solids. Since I do not make this assumption I can allow for the existence of solidity, but not in atoms. Humm, well, I had agreed with the idea of it being 'illusory' inasmuch as it is, simply put, "bound energy" but clearly the binding of that energy speaks of the nature of reality, and thus demonstrates to us its concept of solidity (unchanging shape over time, AND impact resistant) in a manner as to make it clear enought to us that it is in an 'upheld' position, supposted by the evidence that the universe itself provides us...



A nice evening to you also (I'm getting off-line now), and forgive my comment about wasting my time, but I just couldn't take the level of sarcasm you'd been using. Sarcasm only gives the idea that you don't care about what you are saying, and are arguing for the sake of arguing. If this is not true of you then I apologize for my misconception, and advise you to lower the level of sarcasm so as not to mislead someone else into my same mistake.

Generally I use very little sarcasm perhaps you read it there when it isn't, perhaps I get it that way and don't realize it (?), one way or the other, both! apology accepted, (Thanks!) and offered! inasmuch as even though you demonstrate learning beyond your years, I still have an unfair advantage in that very same realm, age, not your fault, not really mine either, but it is an "unfairness" just the same...

 

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
From Magick by Aliester Crowley:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a God, I very God of very God; I go upon my way to work my will; I have made matter and motion for my mirror; I have decreed for my delight that Nothingness should...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here I thought you was a Christian. Crowley is cetainly an interesting character. Do you find this philiosphy persuasive?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Cited from; TheMcGraw-Hill Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science & Technology
Version 2.0
Copyright © 1998 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc All rights reserved
DynaText Copyright © 1990-1997 Inso Corporation.

(titled; "Quarks")
The basic constituent particles, of which "elementary" particles are now believed to be composed. Theoretical models built on the quark concept have been very successful in explaining and predicting many phenomena in particle physics. Please I am NOT trying to "rub anything in", by simply to ensure that the "Current Thought Path" is clear...

...Followed by this informative look at 'time'...
A successful experiment must have: (1) a very high-intensity incident proton beam to produce a sufficient amount of J particles for detection; and (2) the ability, in a billionth of a second, to pick out the J/psi ® e- e+ pairs amidst billions of other particles through the detection apparatus.

and empirically this restriction was found to lead to a suppression of the decay rate resulting in a long lifetime and narrow width.

Understandably, in these kinds of studies the idea of a billionth of a second as 'Long' is quite acceptable as (If I recall it right) some of them have lifetimes in the orders of 10^-40 (thereabouts) of a second...so a billionth is 'long', in comparision, but in comparision to the particle it forms, the proton, well..."stable" particle is the word that replaces 'solid' particle, but then 'stability' is "The ability to maintain shape", so is 'solidity', 'impact resistive' is simply a "Bonus upon the proving" that the article in question is indeed rather 'solid', and in the terms we humans can relate to, for I (too?) have knowledge of just what "hitting your head on a piece of concrete" really feels like, "Solid" is a good description, I had thought (too)...

Reality contains solids...An "illusion" generated by/in the 'Light' (EMR)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Humm, well, I had agreed with the idea of it being 'illusory' inasmuch as it is, simply put, "bound energy" but clearly the binding of that energy speaks of the nature of reality, and thus demonstrates to us its concept of solidity (unchanging shape over time, AND impact resistant) in a manner as to make it clear enought to us that it is in an 'upheld' position, supposted by the evidence that the universe itself provides us...

Impact-resistance may indeed be produced, but that doesn't make something solid (at least, not by definition). Solid is a state of matter. It is a state in which the particles that make up this "solid" entity must hold rigid formation. Now, while an atom could be deemed "unchanging in shape" (barring decay and such things) and "impact-resistant", it still cannot be deemed "solid", because the definition of "solid" requires more out of it.

Generally I use very little sarcasm perhaps you read it there when it isn't, perhaps I get it that way and don't realize it (?), one way or the other, both! apology accepted, (Thanks!) and offered! inasmuch as even though you demonstrate learning beyond your years, I still have an unfair advantage in that very same realm, age, not your fault, not really mine either, but it is an "unfairness" just the same...

I appreciate that you are being reasonable about this. One problem though: What in the world does age have to do with it?

 

[Mentat]

As to your other post (the one just above my previous one), my response is:

1) Just because he called them the constituent parts of "elementary particles" doesn't mean that that's how they are usually referenced. In any pop-sci book you can check out (any current one, anyway) they will tell you that the elementary particles are quarks and leptons. In fact, if you were to go to a site on the internet that displays the Standard Model, they'd tell you the same thing.

2) I don't get the point about how long a proton lasts. What are you trying to say?

 

[Mumeishi]

What was the subject of this thread again?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
What was the subject of this thread again?

I was thinking the same thing, but I wasn't going to say anything since I'm sort of enjoying this side-track...

Mr.Robin Parsons could start a new thread on the subject of solidity, if he wanted, since I want to re-direct this thread soon.

 

[Mumeishi]

Good idea. Perhaps Mr Parsons could call the new thread

'Why the scientific community and dictionary definition of 'solid' are wrong'

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally found at this http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary" , Websters Dictionary
(Definition of 'Solid' as found under "Noun")
2 a : a substance that does not flow perceptibly under moderate stress, has a definite capacity for resisting forces (as compression or tension) which tend to deform it, and under ordinary conditions retains a definite size and shape

 

[Mumeishi]

Let's move on...please.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Good idea. Perhaps Mr Parsons could call the new thread
'Why the scientific community and dictionary definition of 'solid' are wrong'

followed by;

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Let's move on...please.

Follow your own advise please.....because when (and now you warrant the offence as you are attempting to place words in my mouth, that come from you, NOT me!) an "Idiot" pretends to do someone elses's thinking for them, well what they really see is simply the inside of themselves...and BTW justify 'idiot'? the first quote does that, well...you do it to yourself...

P.S. You'll notice that the dictionary definition follows what I have been saying, and I notice you cannot prove otherwise, either...nothing more then a (very) poor loser, with the inclusion of the obviousness of the sadness that you don't seem to even be concerned in finding the answer, but more defending what you have been taught by "others"...how sad, and un-Scientific...

 

[Canute]

If one takes a strictly reductionist view of matter how does one avoid concluding that it's made out of nothing? What is it that is ultimately irreducible?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Originally found at this site, Websters Dictionary
(Definition of 'Solid' as found under "Noun")
2 a : a substance that does not flow perceptibly under moderate stress, has a definite capacity for resisting forces (as compression or tension) which tend to deform it, and under ordinary conditions retains a definite size and shape

Fine, and this most certainly doesn't apply to an atom (or even a proton, for that matter). Look at the definition, and put it up against what I've been saying about quantum Uncertainty and fluidity of quark movement...

"A substance that does not flow perceptibly under moderate stress"...a proton (and, more importantly, a quark) does flow perceptibly under moderate stress. Remember, at the quantum level there are no real "particles" but "wavicles" which behave both as particles and as waves.

"has a definite capacity for resisting forces which tend to deform it"...surely you're not going to say that the collapse of the wave-function of a fundamental particle, under rather minute stress (in quantum terms) still allows it to meet this criterion.

"and under ordinary conditions retains a definite size and shape"...size, maybe; but shape?! No way.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Canute
If one takes a strictly reductionist view of matter how does one avoid concluding that it's made out of nothing?

E.i.N.S. --> "...how does one avoid concluding that it isn't made of anything".

These to statements are semantically equivalent, but I don't want any confusion. There is no thing called "nothing", and thus there isn't anything that is made out of such a thing. However, if something is truly fundamental the it wouldn't be made out of anything (and could thus, and only thus, be said to be "made of nothing").

What is it that is ultimately irreducible?

If there is something that is ultimately irreducible, then it isn't "nothing". Remember that, please; too many arguments have been started over this point in the past.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
Fine, and this most certainly doesn't apply to an atom (or even a proton, for that matter). Look at the definition, and put it up against what I've been saying about quantum Uncertainty and fluidity of quark movement...
"A substance that does not flow perceptibly under moderate stress"...a proton (and, more Way LESS importantly, as the "Model for exemplary solidity" is the PROTON, NOT the quark! importantly, a quark) does flow perceptibly under moderate stress. Remember, at the quantum level there are no real "particles" but "wavicles" which behave both as particles and as waves.

"has a definite capacity for resisting forces which tend to deform it"...surely you're not going to say that the collapse of the wave-function of a fundamental particle, under rather minute stress (in quantum terms) still allows it to meet this criterion. Words in my mouth?, NO! I said PROTON! the above is proven FASLE in respect of Protons inasmuch as the energies required to "bust em up", But maybe you just don't know anything about that...

"and under ordinary conditions retains a definite size and shape"...size, maybe; but shape?! No way. Are you still talking about quarks? or Protons? in this statement, cause if your saying shape in a proton is changing over time, please PROVE IT!

EDIT P.S. The reference to "Flow perceptibly" is a distinguishement from "fluidity" which is not to be confused with 'deformation' from impact(s)...even a Quark Does not "flow" as a "fluid" more likened to a gel...sticky...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
followed by;

Follow your own advise please.....because when (and now you warrant the offence as you are attempting to place words in my mouth, that come from you, NOT me!) an "Idiot" pretends to do someone elses's thinking for them, well what they really see is simply the inside of themselves...and BTW justify 'idiot'? the first quote does that, well...you do it to yourself...

P.S. You'll notice that the dictionary definition follows what I have been saying, and I notice you cannot prove otherwise, either...nothing more then a (very) poor loser, with the inclusion of the obviousness of the sadness that you don't seem to even be concerned in finding the answer, but more defending what you have been taught by "others"...how sad, and un-Scientific...

Watch the personal remarks, please. They're never warranted and were only produced ever since the side-tracking (partially my own fault ) of the this thread...which is why Mumeishi would be asking us to "move on".

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by mentat
Watch the personal remarks, please. They're never warranted and were only produced ever since the side-tracking (partially my own fault ) of the this thread...which is why Mumeishi would be asking us to "move on".

A small piece of advice, please direct your remarks at the person initiating the event, maybe you hadn't noticed (as per friendship) but it is mumeishe's "ridcule" that started this, your remark about "what has age to do with it" didn't help either, but does tell me what you do know about it...(by your hand)...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
EDIT P.S. The reference to "Flow perceptibly" is a distinguishement from "fluidity" which is not to be confused with 'deformation' from impact(s)...even a Quark Does not "flow" as a "fluid" more likened to a gel...sticky...

You see how this is all that showed up when I hit "quote"? That's because you typed within the quote-box again...please don't do that, it makes it very hard to respond coherently.

As it is, the proton may be your model for solidity, but a while ago it was the atom, and it isn't really relevant either way. Neutrons have been shown to posses exactly those "wavicle" properties as the fundamental quarks have, except at a less noticable level. Protons must be the same (though I don't personally know for sure if experiments have been conducted on the proton).

I never mentioned the ability to "bust up" a proton, but the ability to deform it. Ever heard of "decay"?

Last, but not least, when I remarked about its "shape" I was talking about the fact that the proton may be a hadron of point particles, or it may be a hadron of vibrating strings. It (the whole proton (though that's like speaking of "the whole solar system" as a separate entity from "planets revolving around star", IMO)) also "changes" form to be a "wave" in some experiments, while it shows up as a "particle" in other experiments (again, this is an assumption, but it is based on having actually read about the experiments done on Neutrons which are hadrons too).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
A small piece of advice, please direct your remarks at the person initiating the event, maybe you hadn't noticed (as per friendship) but it is mumeishe's "ridcule" that started this, your remark about "what has age to do with it" didn't help either, but does tell me what you do know about it...(by your hand)...

Mumeishi didn't initiate the insults, and my opinion on that is not biased, but based on having looked back to make sure...he only said that we should move on.

And what does my comment about age have to do with it? I didn't insult you. In fact, I could have been (though I wasn't) insulted by the implication, on your part, that I must be less intelligent than you simply because I'm younger than you.

Indeed, an older person has had more opportunity to become wise, but that just makes it all the more inexcusable that so many haven't. It doesn't mean that a younger person has had no opportunity to gain wisdom, and it doesn't mean that they haven't taken better advantage of this opportunity than someone thrice their age.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
Mumeishi didn't initiate the insults, and my opinion on that is not biased, but based on having looked back to make sure...he only said that we should move on. And what I would really like to know (possible the Mentors too) is how he kept it from registering the EDIT!...cause if you look at my posting, just below his "Lets move on", you will see that I had Captured his Ridicule of me (Insult) so his having edited his post "Sans notation", well really suspicious, don't you think? nevermind I can no longer trust him for anything he types on these pages unless I keep copies of every single thing, OYE he ain't worth it!
EDIT: Oooops, my mistake he deleted the insulting one, I got it now...

And what does my comment about age have to do with it? I didn't insult you. In fact, I could have been (though I wasn't) insulted by the implication, on your part, What part, the part where I apologised to you? that I must be less intelligent than you simply because I'm younger than you. Insecure? why don't you try reality, nothing to do with intelligence, But with "KNOWLEDGE" as that is a time dependant aquisitional 'thing', so age, does make a (for your sake I put "potential") difference.

Indeed, an older person has had more opportunity to become wise, Start back at "knowledgable" please...wisdom's another thing altogether) but that just makes it all the more inexcusable that so many haven't. It doesn't mean that a younger person has had no opportunity to gain wisdom, and it doesn't mean that they haven't taken better advantage of this opportunity than someone thrice their age.

For you to be able to take advantage of the opportunities that I have had in my lifetime, you would need live 47 years. Just because you can "take better advantage then someone thrice their age" (IF that's true) doesn't mean you have caught up to them, even if you went at twice my pace, you would still be behind me, I have had 47 "opportunity years", if you were working at twice my pace you would have had 30, three times my pace and you are still short at 45...get it?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Heck I even got the error/EDIT wrong, mumeishi's ridicule, it's still there...
But while I am here, I had gone looking and found this...
(as I do want for accuracy)

Originally found at http://hep.bu.edu/~superk/pdk.html" site..

Because the exchanged particle is so heavy, the proton lifetime predicted by grand unification models is extremely long... about 20 orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe!

No events have been observed and a limit on the lifetime has been set to be over 10^(33) years

the bottom statement coorelates to other sites "times" for proton decay, the 10³³ years, others range it at 6.5 x 10³¹ years, but clearly, a long duration particle.

Clearly I had had it wrong when I had stated that it was in the 10^{to the 40's something} as it is some time shorter then that...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
For you to be able to take advantage of the opportunities that I have had in my lifetime, you would need live 47 years. Just because you can "take better advantage then someone thrice their age" (IF that's true) doesn't mean you have caught up to them, even if you went at twice my pace, you would still be behind me, I have had 47 "opportunity years", if you were working at twice my pace you would have had 30, three times my pace and you are still short at 45...get it?

You obviously missed the point.

First off, I wasn't referring to myself when I said the "take better advantage than someone thrice their age" comment.

Secondly, you have not taken advantage of every chance to gain more knowledge that you've been presented with in your life, and thus your age is not a good marker for how hard I have to work to catch up with you.

Lastly, wisdom is indeed different than knowledge, but most people think that both come with age, so I use them interchangeably in this context. I know that knowledge is an aquisitional thing, but if you spend very little time reading (and I'm not saying you do) for 47 years, but just let the time pass you by, while I'm learning more and more each day (this part is true), then I will indeed surpass you in knowledge. There's nothing wrong with that. If you did take advantage of every opportunity to gain knowledge throughout your lifetime (or even went at the same pace that I've been going at) then you'd be far beyond me...but have you really worked that hard? If you have, I commend you. If you haven't, then I request that you not comment on my age.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
First off, I wasn't referring to myself when I said the "take better advantage than someone thrice their age" comment. Ahem, any reference to age, once introduced as it has been in this conversation, which (BTW) is about to cease, is taken as "in reference to the conversations direction". (that a Normal practise for most people) I would have thought you 'capable enough' to recognize thusly, and NOT try to use debating tactics with me, again, but...

Secondly, you have not taken advantage of every chance to gain more knowledge that you've been presented with in your life, and thus your age is not a good marker for how hard I have to work to catch up with you. It was an e-x-a-m-p-l-e to make the point that, (BY YOUR ADMMISSION) you hadn't understood, or so you said...

Lastly, wisdom is indeed different than knowledge, but most people think that both come with age, so I (Erroneously, as they are not interchangable, one is a product of the other...maybe!) use them interchangeably in this context. I know that knowledge is an aquisitional thing, but if you spend very little time reading (and I'm not saying you do) for 47 years, but just let the time pass you by, while I'm learning more and more each day (this part is true), then I will indeed surpass you in knowledge. There's nothing wrong with that. If you did take advantage of every opportunity to gain knowledge throughout your lifetime (or even went at the same pace that I've been going at) then you'd be far beyond me...but have you really worked that hard? If you have, I commend you. If you haven't, then I request that you not comment on my age.

You can never, in the entirety of your lifetime, surpass the 'minutia' of the "time of my life" as the "time of your life" must exceed the "time of my life" to accomplish that, after that, we begin into the realms of "Quality of knowledge" and importantly "Application(s) of Knowledge"...Oh yes, please try to remain true to your 'stated form', as you are the one who had told me he made "no conclusions" right?? cause I've seen a few since then.

The older person always "knows more" as they have been alive longer, after that 'quality' counts! Quality of the 'Knowing' that they acquire in simply being alive.

As for your last "two" lines, I don't know, neither do you, my comment on your age, if yourecall, was in the acceptance and the offering of apologies, and my acknowledgment (honesty) that I could recognize that this is an "unfairness", me debating, with you because of My Age, the rest, your defensiveness, well get over it mentat ( ) there are lots of people out there, and NO ONE has an absolute corner on the market for "Smarts".

After all, Smart people Intelligent people, Knowledgable people, and even Wise people (an Oxymoron? he hee ) share what they know, that sort of flattens the curvatures that have been getting smaller and smaller with the increasing populations...

 

[Canute]

Well I'm older still, and my opinion is that it's possible to be wrong at any age, one just become able to do it with better arguments as time goes on, and in emergencies can always resort to being patronising.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Canute
Well I'm older still, and my opinion is that it's possible to be wrong at any age, one just become able to do it with better arguments as time goes on, and in emergencies can always resort to being patronising.

Well, I would agree with the first part, "wrong at any age" is definitely real, as there is no 'age' that brings 'perfection' of action/activity/speach...but not with the last line, as that ends up as 'not educational' nor 'good modelling', but usually simply an indication of someone with either, 'no answer', or 'not the patience' to help the other to see simply their viewpoint.
(Sometimes I have "lacked the patience" too...sooo...)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
You can never, in the entirety of your lifetime, surpass the 'minutia' of the "time of my life" as the "time of your life" must exceed the "time of my life" to accomplish that

My point is that I don't need to exceed the amount of your lifetime in order to exceed the amount of your knowledge.

...after that, we begin into the realms of "Quality of knowledge" and importantly "Application(s) of Knowledge"...Oh yes, please try to remain true to your 'stated form', as you are the one who had told me he made "no conclusions" right?? cause I've seen a few since then.

It's called a Working Assumption. I wouldn't post it if I didn't want you to try and prove it wrong. I'm open to any logical debate on the matter, but that's not what I'm getting from you.

The older person always "knows more" as they have been alive longer, after that 'quality' counts! Quality of the 'Knowing' that they acquire in simply being alive.

As for your last "two" lines, I don't know, neither do you, my comment on your age, if yourecall, was in the acceptance and the offering of apologies, and my acknowledgment (honesty) that I could recognize that this is an "unfairness", me debating, with you because of My Age, the rest, your defensiveness, well get over it mentat ( ) there are lots of people out there, and NO ONE has an absolute corner on the market for "Smarts".

Even if that person is the oldest man alive. I'm not trying to be defensive, I'm trying to get you to stop making statements about people's ages since this can only serve to both offend the younger person and weaken your stance (by making you seem arrogant, and seem like you think you are justified in being arrogant because you're older).

I'm sorry if it bothers you for me to disagree with you, but that's the purpose of the forum: logical debate (not "I state what I think and you state what you think; we all make funny remarks about each other's views and move on").

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
My point is that I don't need to exceed the amount of your lifetime in order to exceed the amount of your knowledge.
O.K...And my point is that time is going to prove you wrong...Who's opinion do you think is more qualified? (And why?...then again, don' respond, please!)

It's called a Working Assumption. I wouldn't post it if I didn't want you to try and prove it wrong. I'm open to any logical debate on the matter, but that's not what I'm getting from you. Possibly? because you are not presenting it as an "open assumption" but rather as a conclusion...my opinion...

Even if that person is the oldest man alive. I'm not trying to be defensive, I'm trying to get you to stop making statements about people's ages since this can only serve to both offend the younger (Why? are you offended by the truth? by your own age? what is off-end(ing) you?) person and weaken your stance This is contrary to what you have written below, as this is not supposed to be about stances, but 'facts of Science' and "The description that approximates the truth of those scientific observations" the best, it is NOT 'won' by "Stance" it is learned in exchange... (by making you seem arrogant, and seem like you think you are justified in being arrogant because you're older).

I'm sorry if it bothers you Not in the least! for me to disagree with you, but that's the purpose of the forum: logical debate (not "I state what I think and you state what you think; we all make funny remarks about each other's views and move on"). Is that what your exclusively doing??

Ab BTW "...Justified in being arrogant..." How is attempting to ensure that 'the best possible answer is presented' being 'arrogant'? arrogance presents itself as right because it says it is, the path I have followed is to attempt to show the "...description that approximates the truth of those scientific observations..." as in mumieshi attempted to ridicule me with one of the most common lines in an internet science forum, "You think all Science is wrong..." that I followed up on by simply posting the right information (dictionary reference) (as best as I could) and you, "couched immaturity" as you are showing yourself to be(?), call me arrogant for it?? what an arrogant (somewhat educated/book-read) little Boy you truly are presenting yourself as...no wonder it is so difficult for you...it is really becoming obvious that your opinion on age seems to be the only way you will accept it, maybe we can talk again when your in your twenties + +...cause as I stated and clearly,

Originally posted par moi
(SNIP)...which (BTW) is about to cease...(SNoP)

C:\Ya.*

 

[Sikz]

You see, if the Mind ß the Set of all things that exist, then how can the Mind itself exist at all?

Isn't existence relative? The mind itself cannot exist at all from the perspective of outside the mind. However, from inside the mind the mind is ALL that exists. The paradox, taken this way, comes closer to supporting the idea than disproving it.

 

[Canute]

I'd say you've got something there. The Cosmos is also the set of all sets. I wonder if that's a coincidence. They're the only two things whose existence is so self-referential that it doesn't seem to be logical.