Discussion in 'Economics' started by brettman9, Sep 22, 2008.
Of course she grew up in the age of 1917 Bolshevik revolution. Red verses White. Winner take all.
That's THE question. I think so many are in a similar position right now.
I think in terms of analogy here. Do we bail out the circulatory system before the muscle tissue dies? Even if it's an implied injustice?
This is tough to watch.
I am trying to educate you - work with me, little Timmy.
Look, you can study a field - and the science of that field will be expanding with knowledge. You shed the old models and you put in new ones...
There are several models to try and explain the different characteristics of the gases as they heat up...
Also - if you look into quantum physics, and especially Quantum Chromodynamics (strong nuclear force) - it is still evolving.
Or you could see about explaining superfluidity...
And THAT is the whole point, bubba.
It is ALL about evolution and adaptation - and if you are a loser stuck in your bible or the books of Ayn Rand with propositional logic - you are going to be just that - an evolutionary fluke. Period.
Evolution and the universe do not "stop" - they evolve. But the human brain is limited in space, and therefore stops growing when becoming an adult. Therefore it is sometimes very hard to "teach an old dog some new tricks" - it takes a lot of effort to "rewire" those neurons in your grey matter. My point is - a system only carries a specific view and aspect of reality - it is relative to this system/model that you state "facts".
I take MY understanding right down from epistemology and phenomenology to understand how I evolve and learn - adapt to situations. You are stuck like a big fat ass dinosaur in your reductionist ways using Occam's razor. A pity...
you need to understand about validity of an argument - RELATIVE to a logic model. It can be perfectly valid within the logic model - but still wrong ... For a logic to work it most be sound and complete etc.
Well damnit, I don't care if you evolve your answer, I want it. Why is my simple tautology, A = A, not absolutely true? It's okay if you don't answer but in that case you'd better adapt your mouth shut.
Well, in paraconsistent logic you can have A = A and at the same time A = not A.
Besides, you should understand the SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat problem.
Now go study...
Cool! The Buttman!
So, then, there are absolutely no absolutes?
You are absolutely right - there are absolutely not any absolutes, and you can absolutely always quote me in absolute terms on that.
I already made that joke earlier to day in the economics forum... a pity you will never understand it.
You've hyperinflated the value of your ideas with a fiat epistemology.
You thought you could corner me using logics and into an contradiction - while the real issue is YOU not understanding the complexity of the issues.
I promise you, you can't even get close to defining what nothingness is - while I can define it from many different viewpoints coherently within many systems of thinking, philosophy or deduction... I have spent two decades on philosophical forums and talking with friends about philosophy... because I enjoy it and like exercising my brain.
Separate names with a comma.