|
Post by nickrr on Jul 22, 2016 12:22:32 GMT 1
Just to be precise, quantum mechanics tells us that you can't measure distance to an arbitrarily small precision.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 22, 2016 13:56:43 GMT 1
...sacked from her profession for misconduct... The usual insults are harmless enough, and say far more about you than the people you direct them at. But I am not happy about outright lies presented as statements of fact. So get rid of this one or I'll have to report the board to Proboards for abusive posting.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jul 23, 2016 19:18:11 GMT 1
I gave you the standard definition. Then why did you misuse it in your next posting? Or did you not understand what you wrote the first time?
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jul 23, 2016 19:27:31 GMT 1
So much for your superior knowledge, training or expertise - just 33 years out of date (I was there). At least Alan Davies (PhD, Kent, 2003) had the humility to do his homework and ask experts, instead of spouting Kruger-Dunning nonsense and making a public fool of himself.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 23, 2016 19:44:14 GMT 1
So much for your superior knowledge, training or expertise - just 33 years out of date (I was there). At least Alan Davies (PhD, Kent, 2003) had the humility to do his homework and ask experts, instead of spouting Kruger-Dunning nonsense and making a public fool of himself. Oh do shutup Alan, no one's making a fool of themselves but you. FYI, the original bar standard is still kept, as are their replacements, and their deterioration is still monitored. But just to be clear, seeing as you seem to be somewhat confuse by it, I was not claiming superior knowledge or expertise over every little sphere of experience in your life. I was rejecting your pompous claim to superior knowledge over spheres of mine. You might be right, on the other hand, but if you're trying to correct me about the meaning of theconcepts used in science you need to make a little more effort. Cite me your dictionary definition, as I had the courtesy to do to you.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 23, 2016 19:46:13 GMT 1
I gave you the standard definition. Then why did you misuse it in your next posting? Or did you not understand what you wrote the first time? I didn't msuse it, in any posting. If you think I did, give your alternative definition, to the standard one cited in every dictionary, and then we can move on.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 23, 2016 20:10:19 GMT 1
The usual insults are harmless enough, and say far more about you than the people you direct them at. Well, you must surely know all about that, Jean. Or don't tell me shock horror! - you're another one like Louise who's blissfully unaware of her own obnoxiousness, and hypersensitive to anyone who responds remotely in kind? Alright - I'll make the same offer: I'm willing to go back to see who started this latest round of what you call "insults" when you're at the receiving end. You want me to? Really? Perhaps you'd better think of that when you do it to others, then. Go ahead. For what it's worth, I believe it is a fact. It's certainly what I've been informed - though I ackowledge there's a fine disticntcion to be drawn between "dismissed" and "pushed out". Deny it if you wish. Personally, I couldn't care less either way.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 23, 2016 20:14:44 GMT 1
Just to be precise, quantum mechanics tells us that you can't measure distance to an arbitrarily small precision. On the contrary. You can measure it to the Planck length, if that's all you're interested in. Nothing arbitrary about it, and it's as small as "absolute" needs to be. Not that this is what "absolute" means either.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 23, 2016 20:43:39 GMT 1
What does "absolute" mean? In any context? It means objective, impartially valid, not subject to individual choice or arbitrary determination, an aspect of existent reality rather than subjective perception. So a statement that Pi is 3.14 within two decimal places is ABSOLUTELY precise according to ME and EVERYBODY ELSE, except for you - presumably because there's the possibility in Louise-Land that Pi doesn't really exist?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 23, 2016 22:52:32 GMT 1
Perhaps you'd better think of that when you do it to others, then. So you knew it was a lie, when you wrote it. Otherwise, what is the 'it' you claim I 'do to others'? A lie told you by someone else, apparently: Who was it who 'informed' you? Such lies possibly don't matter that much as hardly anyone reads this board, and the few who do don't give you much credence. But I don't care for lies all the same, and I've asked you to remove this one. Will you do that, please?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 23, 2016 22:57:53 GMT 1
What does "absolute" mean? In any context? It means objective, impartially valid, not subject to individual choice or arbitrary determination, an aspect of existent reality rather than subjective perception. Absolute means not related to anythibng else, or related only to a fixed standard existing outside of itself. The rest is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 23, 2016 22:58:50 GMT 1
Perhaps you'd better think of that when you do it to others, then. So you knew it was a lie, when you wrote it. Nope. I believe it's the truth.I appreciate the admission, the confession, though. What you're claiming my post is. As you're well aware. You don't wanr to down that route, Jean. My advice is you drop it. The Education world is a lot smaller than you seem to believe. Nope. It's not a lie. Unlike yours. But I'll remove it, and accept it's a bit of misinformed gossip amongst your former superiors, such things happen in such Chinese Rooms, if you remove your slander. And apologise for it.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 23, 2016 23:02:44 GMT 1
What does "absolute" mean? In any context? It means objective, impartially valid, not subject to individual choice or arbitrary determination, an aspect of existent reality rather than subjective perception. Absolute means not related to anythibng else, or related only to a fixed standard existing outside of itself. No, it doesn't. You're thinking of - Kant I think, or possibly Hegel, or the last eccentric to use such a definition was Bradley, I think. For everybody else in philosophy, and science, it means what I said it meant. Your pompous pretence at understanding the first thing about philosophy or science is the irrelevant thing. I'd have thought you'd have learnt this by now - how many times have we been around this ring before? Every time you end up with a bloody nose and your seconds throwing in the towel.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 23, 2016 23:14:20 GMT 1
You don't wanr to down that route, Jean. My advice is you drop it. No. You, who claim such veneration for the truth, have written an egregious lie. I believe you simply made it up. But you claim that someone told you, and I want to know who that someone is. No, you'll remove it and tell me who these 'former superiors' are who you claim have been telling you things. Or this board may go the way of some of its predecessors.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 23, 2016 23:26:04 GMT 1
You don't wanr to down that route, Jean. My advice is you drop it. No. Alright, you'll only get more hurt. Bluffers whose bluff is called always do. Unless I'm kind. You want to rely on my kindness? No. The truth is, at most it's a Chinese Whisper distortion. If you want the truth. And I believe it's the truth, and you're lying through your teeth. Well, who cares what you want? Nope. Stamp your feet as much as you like. Oh yeah? That sounds like a threat, and a confession. Do you think for a second that I care? Even if you could do as you threaten - which everyone here is well aware you cannot? What would that be - the second or third time? You do get in a tizzy, don't you, when people dare to treat you as you treat them? Not your classroom now, Mein Herr.
|
|