Have you researched that thing about the particulate matter where they change behavior if we view them
What, do you mean Schrodinger's cat, or do you mean something more directly observable like the Hawthorne Effect?
You always use so many words to say "no one knows what's going on". lol
To state 2+2=4 without blind confidence it is necessary to reason plausibly and then demonstratively.
Why limit yourself like that though?
I view the converse as limiting.
Why know that I know nothing when I could know all the ways I know nothing?
You always use so many words to say "no one knows what's going on". lol
To state 2+2=4 without blind confidence it is necessary to reason plausibly and then demonstratively.
Why limit yourself like that though?
I view the converse as limiting.
Why know that I know nothing when I could know all the ways I know nothing?
You view nominal and ordinal scales as nothing?
You always use so many words to say "no one knows what's going on". lol
To state 2+2=4 without blind confidence it is necessary to reason plausibly and then demonstratively.
Why limit yourself like that though?
I view the converse as limiting.
Why know that I know nothing when I could know all the ways I know nothing?
You view nominal and ordinal scales as nothing?
I expect she wasn't being entirely literal.
You always use so many words to say "no one knows what's going on". lol
To state 2+2=4 without blind confidence it is necessary to reason plausibly and then demonstratively.
Why limit yourself like that though?
I view the converse as limiting.
Why know that I know nothing when I could know all the ways I know nothing?
You view nominal and ordinal scales as nothing?
I expect she wasn't being entirely literal.
Indeed I am not being literal, just playing with this idea of going the long way around to say we know nothing.
Talking about nothing literally, that's a topic all in itself.
You always use so many words to say "no one knows what's going on". lol
To state 2+2=4 without blind confidence it is necessary to reason plausibly and then demonstratively.
Why limit yourself like that though?
I view the converse as limiting.
Why know that I know nothing when I could know all the ways I know nothing?
You view nominal and ordinal scales as nothing?
I expect she wasn't being entirely literal.
Indeed I am not being literal, just playing with this idea of going the long way around to say we know nothing.
If we know nothing why stick to 2+2=4?
You always use so many words to say "no one knows what's going on". lol
To state 2+2=4 without blind confidence it is necessary to reason plausibly and then demonstratively.
Why limit yourself like that though?
I view the converse as limiting.
Why know that I know nothing when I could know all the ways I know nothing?
You view nominal and ordinal scales as nothing?
I expect she wasn't being entirely literal.
Indeed I am not being literal, just playing with this idea of going the long way around to say we know nothing.
If we know nothing why stick to 2+2=4?
I don't think we know nothing.
Nothing as a thing in itself cannot be known.
As I said I am just playing we QBs language.
This can all be related to the original post of this thread as the questions posed allude that all things known at the least are cognized objects.
Relating this to 2+2=4, we know this particular object via a conventional construction of axioms based a number of assumptions. When someone accepts the convention they can say demonstratively that the object '2+2=4' exists.
I more so get "2+2=4" to show itself as an expression that reinforces the idea of scholastically conditioned ratio scaling into a common sense nomenclature, and from it I see people misattributing the weight of numbers as if every number were equally spread apart.
You start to see it fall apart more when you look at the subtext for the use of it, such as how different every set of 10 points may account for in an IQ test.
I more so get "2+2=4" to show itself as an expression that reinforces the idea of scholastically conditioned ratio scaling into a common sense nomenclature,
Yes, a conventional construction of axioms based a number of assumptions.
and from it I see people misattributing the weight of numbers as if every number were equally spread apart.
People ignorant to the actual workings of arithmetic and mathematics makes this assumption, probably because they only ever get to know the integers and are given only a small fraction of the story. Mathematicians are usually not guilty of this given the different types of numbers and their properties including absolute value, order, and operations.
I tend to view mathematics as an actual art form that allows you to play the potentiality of quantity in all its forms.
As you change foundational assumptions the axioms can change and so can your mathematical ontology.
You start to see it fall apart more when you look at the subtext for the use of it, such as how different every set of 10 points may account for in an IQ test.
I think it falls apart way before you apply it.
