I am going to truly hope here that your response was simply a joke, albeit one in poor taste. But in the depressing possibility that it wasn’t, I’ll respond anyway. However, if you continue in this nonsensical vein with future responses, I’m not even going to justify them with an answer. I have little patience for inanity.
Originally posted by Ancient Of Days+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ancient Of Days)</div>
But what is existence? It is the same thing as non-existence. Because something cannot exist without it's opposite. And it's opposite is always the same thing.[/b]
No. The opposite of something is not the same as the thing itself. It is in fact the antithesis of the thing itself. Since you seem to lack a dictionary, here is the definition of opposite.
op•po•site
adj.
1. Placed or located directly across from something else or from each other: opposite sides of a building.
2. Facing the other way; moving or tending away from each other: opposite directions.
3. Being the other of two complementary or mutually exclusive things: the opposite sex; an opposite role to the lead in the play.
4.
a. Altogether different, as in nature, quality, or significance: The effect of the medication was opposite to that intended.
b. Sharply contrasting; antithetical: had opposite views on the subject.
The concept of existence cannot exist without the concept of nonexistence, but the two are in fact opposing states, as indicated by the prefix “non”. Give me a break, guy, even a child of five knows that existence and nonexistence are not the same thing, and are in fact opposites. A unicorn existing in the corner of my room is quite different from a unicorn not existing in the corner of my room. In one instance, there is a unicorn in my room; in the other, there is not. Clearly, there is a difference.
Originally posted by Ancient Of Days@
What is not the smallest? Soon as you say something is the smallest. There is to be recognized somethng else that is also the smallest. It is relative. You could also say it's the largest. What is the difference. It's just a matter of degree.
Please, please tell me that you’re only acting this daft as a joke. If you’re not, I won’t know whether to laugh or cry. The Planck time is in no possible way the largest unit of time, nor is its duration in any way relative. It is well-defined at the value which I have provided. Twice. An hour is a larger unit of time than the Planck time, and since a unit exists which is larger than the Planck time, the Planck time cannot in any way be the “largest unit of time”. It’s not relative. And in case you want to bring the General Theory of Relativity into this, I am speaking of these time durations in the rest frame of any events which we might be measuring.
<!--QuoteBegin-Ancient Of Days
Yes it does. Go back to the time when they said it was flat. You were crazy to suggest it was round. Now the opposite is true. Today you are crazy if you say it's flat.
The fact that most laymans in ancient times thought that the world was flat did not make it flat. Observant and discerning people even back then knew that the world could not be a disk, since the masts of ships rose gradually above the horizon rather than simply appearing there as if out of the haze of distance. The world did not simply plump up into a distended sphere when people started believing that it was round. People realized it was round because since its formation, it has had that geometry, and as technology improved, human beings were able to collect the evidence that demonstrated it to be so.
|
|
Bookmarks