Message from @Whithers
Discord ID: 786434859526127626
@Whithers "know" is the same thing. You cant "Know" anything. So any study into what we "Know" will be wrong.
Ah, but experience, might not be valid!
sorry I guess I ventured into engineering ... a scientist conducts a study, an engineer sees that and attaches "knobs" and begins turning
@Whithers I cant do research into your experience as it is clearly yours, not mine.
@Doc If existence is then experience is is reflexive. If existence is not, then experience is illusory. We are each a Schrödinger's cat in one of Piaget's black boxes communicating on a wire between cups with another Schrödinger's cat in another of Piaget's black boxes, unless of course we are all dead cats.
@Whithers If I am me, because I am me, and you are you because you are you, that is fine. But If I am me because you are you, and you are you because I am me, then I am not truly me, and you are not truly you. Then we have a problem.
Existence is 1. There cannot exist 2 existences. The only way to have more than one thing is to divide the whole. 1 ÷ 2 = 3. Both halves and the totality. All things are a division of the whole.
Khufu already knew that the universe exists only between 0 and 1.
@Doc Yes, I have studied R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz and Rabbi Steinsaltz. 😉
all this because for a discussion on life expectancy statistics? ... y'all are killing me 🤣
Pun intended?
ROFL
but of course
life expectancy goes down as you argue about life expectancy?
One of the biggest problems for science has always been its dependence on principles and axioms for which it can have no legitimate evidence and without which it cannot function as a reliable structure.
well, then the Relative Risk of engaging in Mortality Rate discussions in an online chat app is officially 1.3
lol
out there us is a parlell meglide now still alive because he did not take part in this discussion.....if that is how Mortality rates work....
yes everyone brings their presuppositions to the table or lab bench as it were
@meglide You might enjoy this. I don't agree with him on some of his research, but his general critique is accurate enough - unless you are a religious scientist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE&t=1s
okay well I did the check that I promised and 1600 samples out of ~30k is enough to say with good confidence that those ballots won't change the outcome
very common confusion.
Actually, I separate them quite well. We simply might disagree on by whom the scientisming is being done.
You didnt above.
I suggest you need a little more formal training?
If you are going to dance on the beach, your feet will get wet.
beech
And if you smoke the Ganja, could it be that for all practical purposes, the Ganja is smoking you?
Studying linguistics ruined my spelling. Any sound will do once you dabble in your 8th language you will never speak.
I lack any experience from which to speculate a conclusion.
okay I'm ignoring the philosophical here (if that's what it is) and I'm talking numbers
I do think that the species Homo sapiens ssp. sapiens had a much better acumen about reality as a mean of distribution than what is had today.
maybe I'll go do that in <#771201221145919499> channel
Then perhaps you should read: The Myth of Invariance by Earnest G. McClain. Lots of math to do there.
@Whithers Its wrongly clasified. Either Pan sapiens sapiens or Homo troglodytes.
The difference isnt great enough for two genii.
Which numbers in specific are
you courting?
@Doc Quite probably. However, human females are too discriminating to ever test that hypothesis. 😉
They may call a man an ape, but they only date the great ones, never the chimps.