The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. Quantification
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Quantification

  • 3 Replies
  • 2801 Views
  • 2 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Arcades Cinza (OP)

  • First timers
  • *
  • 3
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
Quantification
« on: 08/09/2020 12:40:13 »
.....Quantificational expression is not just secondary because of some describable subjectivity, but that quantification is only demonstrant through the observer's existence therefore, what we experience is of an inherent inversality.
This means that experienced realism is of a representative infinite-supposition, that makes the content of quantification and the observer synonymous aspects, a supra-presuppositional context, thus representing a type of equality between the two that quantificationing betrays, thus any description of an observer, that is in any way separated from the wholeness of reality, is incomplete, much like stating that 5 = 3 when the whole is represented as 5 -2= 3.
Also, the supra-presuppostionality is infinitely recursive, and thus, due to the fact that the observer is making the judgement, any judgement of equality, of supra-presupposition, is recursive as well.

Here is the logical premise for the hypothesis statement:
what exactly would be the foundation for a representative beingness that is itself reality, or in a comparative sense, not reality, when reality, perforce, is the comprehensive totalness? Reality must logically be a preliteralism that inherently prenegates the effect of quantitative beingness, or you could say "given composition," unintentious to the certainty of, and the fact of that state: we are talking about the nonconditional pro-proximation of potential quantitative factotum.
No condition, state, or compositional ethos representing reality can be ultimately objective.
Structure, the very basic spatiotemporal unity of elements, is not ultimately objective for the fact that both order and inorder demand for logicality, a precursor intent enacting the realistic designation of symmetric implication. We don't have that in physics, which is the school we presently use to describe the "physical reality condition"
a rational ultimate realism must not have a characteristic condition.
The reality proposes in compositive logic is a preunassociation of realistic logical or illogical literal composite program, therefore no order, or fact or infactitude of order, or premise is actually possible, at least within the limitations of physical context.
Reality must be a supra-symmetrical approximation without the necessity of a precedent condition, or a condition consequent.
Reality having condition, like how for us now reality is a physical one, offers characteristic demands that there is a context of plausibility for a literal programme directive that is specifically a given pattern of composition, and not in fact an ultimate pattern.
Logged
 



Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 21160
  • Activity:
    64%
  • Thanked: 60 times
  • Life is too short for instant coffee
Re: Quantification
« Reply #1 on: 08/09/2020 13:10:06 »
I think this belongs in a sociology or philosophy forum, alongside transformative hermeneutics. Or was it left behind when the cattle market closed?
Logged
Helping stem the tide of ignorance
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 31101
  • Activity:
    10.5%
  • Thanked: 1291 times
Re: Quantification
« Reply #2 on: 08/09/2020 13:22:20 »
Quote from: alancalverd on 08/09/2020 13:10:06
I think this belongs in a sociology or philosophy forum, alongside transformative hermeneutics. Or was it left behind when the cattle market closed?
I thought it was postmodern poetry.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 6476
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 708 times
Re: Quantification
« Reply #3 on: 08/09/2020 15:14:49 »
We don’t really have an irrelevant gibberish section.
This misses the entire point about quantification.
Logged
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags: logic  / physics 
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.253 seconds with 35 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.