â18220678[Quote]
mymy is a poop queen built for stinky nigger logs.
â18220711[Quote]
some things we'll never be capable of measuring with any machines we'll be ever able to create ever, or we'll never understand what we're trying to study in the first place. we just dont know, 99.999% of the world of the exists around us and even more than that we'll never completely understand or understand it was a thing to begin with
â18220713[Quote]
>>18220678she's built for BWC
â18220718[Quote]
>>18220678OP, answer his philosophical solution.
â18220719[Quote]
Schizo Wholesomejak poster is this you?
â18220722[Quote]
>>18220711mega esl moment i need to learn how to fucking type without fucking everything up
â18220742[Quote]
>>18220711I'm not referring to things within the bounds of existence that can be known given unlimited time on paper. I'm talking about things that, given the bounds of knowledge, literally cannot BE knowledge. Such as "why" existence, exists. It just does. There is nothing to know or consider knowledge.
â18220753[Quote]
>>18220742Are you implying certain concepts are unquantifiable in a knowable manner?
â18220758[Quote]
>>18220753I imply exactly what I say, I defined my bounds.
â18220770[Quote]
>>18220758I feel like that's defeatist to imply there are always going to be things that can't be known, things that can't be known 100%? possibly, but to no degree of certainty? nonsense
â18220772[Quote]
>>18220742thats more like philosophy, its something that can be compared and quantified but we'll never be able to measure it with any degree of accuracy or really understand it. thats just most of the world
â18220781[Quote]
>>18220770Yes but it's not exactly as if what we're talking about can care about whether we're defeatist or not. It's out of the equation.
â18220786[Quote]
>>18220718OP, why are you ignoring his brilliant reply?
â18220789[Quote]
>>18220781Implying that thinking about the ultimate reality of base of things has to or doesn't have to care and that it's impartial to our feelings?
â18220801[Quote]
>>18220772Yes but I specifically refer to people trying to quantify nebulous, man-constructed concepts that apply specifically to things that would not be of this world in the first place.
(I'll try not to throw God into this as that always muddies the waters with people, plus he's not my curiosity at the moment)
â18220808[Quote]
>>18220801you mean like the supernatural?
â18220809[Quote]
>>18220801That's a dishonest distinction to try and talk about the ultimate state of reality if you go "But no i won't include the possibility of God"
â18220810[Quote]
OP, you are a Jartycuck for being into philosophy. Just get laid, bro. đ
â18220825[Quote]
>>18220808I suppose I was trying to dumb down what I said initially but what I *mean* is the same as what I said here:
>>18220742(I say this because I'm not sure if we would both be referring to the same idea of "supernatural".)
â18220828[Quote]
>>18220810I actually don't even read or debate philosophy. I just saw a hippie's bumper sticker and got to thinking.
â18220829[Quote]
>>18220825But aren't you inherently implying that by reasoning of talking about things beyond observation?
â18220836[Quote]
>>18220809You acknowledge in any concept of God that he operates in some manner of separate plane of existence (i.e not our reality) but we digress and I was not trying to make a distinction in the first place, merely a preference of topic.
â18220843[Quote]
And FFS I wasn't expecting people to actually get interested in this. I'll get on the damn PC so I can type faster for you guys.
â18220848[Quote]
>>18220836But you said (assuming that you are op) that "it is required that knowledge be founded within the bounds of existence" and i don't think that's true unless you define knowledge as itself to be a concept "of knowing" rather then "things that CAN be known, even if only partially"
â18220852[Quote]
>>18220845I'm aware lol I just thought this prompt's backstory was likewise funny.
â18220868[Quote]
>>18220848You cannot know what doesn't exist. I work that into my definition of knowledge. I'd like to hear more detail on this:
>things that CAN be knownHow do you quantify this in terms of things that categorically are "beyond" existence, such as the perceived (or in some beliefs, possibly real) "reason behind" existence 'existing'?
â18220889[Quote]
>>18220868>you cannot know what doesn't existdark numbers, etc
>>18220868>How do you quantify this in terms of things that categorically are "beyond" existence, such as the perceived (or in some beliefs, possibly real) "reason behind" existence 'existing'?By seeing the things that we can posit to have some other part elsewhere, if you see a tail around a corner, do you go "that must be all there is"?
â18220913[Quote]
For example there are theorized to be 11 or 13ish dimensions and we can only see so many of them (for example time is a dimension, and is directly linked to gravity)
â18221009[Quote]
>>18220889>dark numbersOkay what the fuck is this I just looked it up and I'm actually confused as shit. I assume you're not referring to "Evil numbers" and instead seemingly this number theory thing? If possible could you give me the long and short of it? Because I've not a clue what the fuck "âx â (0, 1]: |SUF(x)| = âľo" being incorrect is supposed to mean.
>By seeing the things that we can posit to have some other part elsewhere, if you see a tail around a corner, do you go "that must be all there is"?Where do you assert that this applies beyond the bounds of existence?
>>18220913>For example there are theorized to be 11 or 13ish dimensions and we can only see so many of them (for example time is a dimension, and is directly linked to gravity)What time and gravity is and how much we know about them still fits within the bounds of existence. We can observe it, its effects and we can know that things are true and not true of it. That requires it to exist in order for this to be the case. Scientific theory is no different, just variably more nebulous, but as long as it can remain scientific at its core it fits these bounds.
What I am talking about is any concept in which these bounds I have established categorically cannot apply.