Posts: 13901
Threads: 263
Joined: January 11, 2009
Reputation:
82
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 8, 2015 at 5:53 am
(February 8, 2015 at 5:40 am)Heywood Wrote: There is no semantics. Anything that is true of all polygons will be true of all triangles. Your daughter could probably figure this out. To be honest, I got a chuckle that you seriously took up the challenge. I hope you didn't waste too much time on it.
So it is an intellectually vacuous challenge as a triangle is a polygon so if it is true for triangles it is true for one polygon.
To search for the for answer to this is a fruitless task as it cannot by definition exist.
This could be a metaphor for something............................ 
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 8, 2015 at 6:02 am
And since what's true of all polygons is true of all triangles, what's true of all triangles is true of all polygons. Don't you guys get it yet?
Posts: 3620
Threads: 22
Joined: January 19, 2015
Reputation:
30
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 8, 2015 at 6:03 am
But... triangles are illuminati.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 8, 2015 at 6:07 am
Step 1: White is a bit like white-pink.
Step 2: White-pink is a bit like pink.
Step 3: Pink is a bit like pink-light red
Step 4: Pink-light red is a bit like light red.
...
Step 278: Very dark gray-black is a bit like black.
Conclusion: white is black.
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 8, 2015 at 6:08 am
(February 8, 2015 at 5:44 am)robvalue Wrote: My parrot smashed through the wall and escaped!
All I have is the hole he left, what shape was it? PolyGon.
You named your parrot "polly". Is your dog named Spot?
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 8, 2015 at 6:09 am
Erm, sure.
Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 8, 2015 at 10:00 am
(February 8, 2015 at 5:37 am)Heywood Wrote: (February 7, 2015 at 9:58 am)Chas Wrote: There is the subset of members that are known to have been created by intellect vs. the subset of members that are not known to have been created by intellect.
Regarding photons. There is the set of all photons. Within that set are two disjointed subsets. Observed Photons, and Unobserved photons. If we applied your logic to photons, we could not draw conclusions about unobserved photons by observing photons.....yet that is exactly what we do. Is all of science wrong?
Not at all the same. Electromagnetic Theory proves all photons travel at the the same speed in a vacuum.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 8, 2015 at 10:15 am
What about photon triangles? Are they a subset of evolving polygon cars?
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 8, 2015 at 10:19 am
(This post was last modified: February 8, 2015 at 10:25 am by bennyboy.)
(February 8, 2015 at 5:40 am)Heywood Wrote: (February 7, 2015 at 8:24 am)bennyboy Wrote: oic more semantics. Fine.
"All polygons" is a Big Set, by your definition of the workings of logic. It's a Big Set which includes squares. Triangles do not include squares. Therefore something that is true of the set of all polygons is not true of triangles. Except, that is, in Heywood Land, where every triangle is proof that all polygons are triangles.
There is no semantics. Anything that is true of all polygons will be true of all triangles. Your daughter could probably figure this out. To be honest, I got a chuckle that you seriously took up the challenge. I hope you didn't waste too much time on it. I find it strange that when faced with the same way in which you abuse set theory, you are so quick to discard it. I'd expect you to say, "Yeah, that makes total sense. That's exactly what I keep doing."
That you aren't saying that means I now have evidence that you do not actually think that logic works that way, but that you are willfully abusing logic in order to hide yourself from the truth. Sand would be easier, but that's fine by me.
(February 8, 2015 at 10:15 am)robvalue Wrote: What about photon triangles? Are they a subset of evolving polygon cars? Don't you know that in the Big Set of "things," every photon is evidence that everything else is also a photon? And since everything is identical, All is One, and the All is Allah, who is the alpha and the omega? I mean it's obvious. Grrrr, you are so reistant to logic.
(February 8, 2015 at 6:02 am)robvalue Wrote: And since what's true of all polygons is true of all triangles, what's true of all triangles is true of all polygons. Don't you guys get it yet? YES! Finally someone accepts the truth.
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 8, 2015 at 1:41 pm
(This post was last modified: February 8, 2015 at 1:51 pm by Heywood.)
(February 8, 2015 at 10:00 am)Chas Wrote: (February 8, 2015 at 5:37 am)Heywood Wrote: Regarding photons. There is the set of all photons. Within that set are two disjointed subsets. Observed Photons, and Unobserved photons. If we applied your logic to photons, we could not draw conclusions about unobserved photons by observing photons.....yet that is exactly what we do. Is all of science wrong?
Not at all the same. Electromagnetic Theory proves all photons travel at the the same speed in a vacuum.
It is the same. It is the same because all theory is ultimately grounded in and derived from observation. The equations which derive the speed of light are still based on observations of other un-derived constants.....which leaves you with disjointed sets. There is the set of all the points of space. In that set are disjointed subsets. The set of points where permeability of free space has been measured and the sets of points where the permeability of free space has not been measured. According to your logic measuring the permeability of free space doesn't tell us anything about the permeability of free space for points of space we have not measured. The same would be true of vacuum permittivity. The value of these two constants are not derived by any theory. They are assumed to be constant based on observation. Is all of science really a sham? It would seem so if we take your thinking to its logical conclusion.
bennyboy Wrote: (February 8, 2015 at 6:02 am)robvalue Wrote: And since what's true of all polygons is true of all triangles, what's true of all triangles is true of all polygons. Don't you guys get it yet? YES! Finally someone accepts the truth.
Benny, you don't really believe this? Do you?
|
