Originally posted by FreakyKBH Actually, I just never met anyone who honestly thought that truth was decided by popular vote.
Gotta hand it to you: you're an original.
So suppose out of 8 billion people, 99.999999 percent of them think Earth is a globe, the rest think it flat. Out of that 99+% there are an awful lot of scientists who actually study such things and they also say Earth is a globe and spinning. The Faucoult pendulum shows that. It is not a coincidence the cycle time is exactly one day long.
Originally posted by sonhouse So suppose out of 8 billion people, 99.999999 percent of them think Earth is a globe, the rest think it flat. Out of that 99+% there are an awful lot of scientists who actually study such things and they also say Earth is a globe and spinning. The Faucoult pendulum shows that. It is not a coincidence the cycle time is exactly one day long.
I'm only laughing to keep from crying.
You were asked there, so it's not original to ask again, but here is the same question from the other thread:
What is the bob attached to on the pendulum?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH I'm only laughing to keep from crying.
You were asked there, so it's not original to ask again, but here is the same question from the other thread:
[b]What is the bob attached to on the pendulum?[/b]
It is attached to the roof, so frigging what? You think the roof is wobbling around to cause the pendulum to swing off course or some bullshyte like that? The original was on a string 67 METERS long and the building is very secure I can assure you. PLUS that experiment has been reproduced dozens of times. Your question is the height of irrelevant. Several orders of magnitude of irrelevant. You are clearly trying to deflect as usual somehow thinking you have some relevant point to make but that line of questioning leads to nothing.
Or prove it. Go ahead, make a case with a wobbly roof or whatever.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Actually, I just never met anyone who honestly thought that truth was decided by popular vote.
Gotta hand it to you: you're an original.
I think it's a viable philosophical position. If one takes some sort of Berkelean position that only minds are real then reality and truth are consensus constructions. I don't think it's a popular position in the West, but I have heard people defend positions like that.
Originally posted by sonhouse It is attached to the roof, so frigging what? You think the roof is wobbling around to cause the pendulum to swing off course or some bullshyte like that? The original was on a string 67 METERS long and the building is very secure I can assure you. PLUS that experiment has been reproduced dozens of times. Your question is the height of irrelevant. Several o ...[text shortened]... stioning leads to nothing.
Or prove it. Go ahead, make a case with a wobbly roof or whatever.
Whatever the bob is attached to is moving with the earth.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Whatever the bob is attached to is moving with the earth.
The swing of the pendulum on a non spinning Earth would maintain the same direction of swing till the cows come home. Get that part? On a NON SPINNING PLANET ONLY will the swing not change. On a spinning planet it is the planet under the pendulum that is changing not the pendulum.
Originally posted by DeepThought I think it's a viable philosophical position. If one takes some sort of Berkelean position that only minds are real then reality and truth are consensus constructions. I don't think it's a popular position in the West, but I have heard people defend positions like that.
By that logic, reality is not its own thing, but rather the sum of all thoughts and that sum necessarily includes ideas which are in opposition to the larger pool.
Too, it lacks a concrete arbiter for determining reality: based on mean, median?
And, it must stand outside of itself while also being part of the equation: cannot make a truth statement without truth being a thing which can be known.
Reality has an inherent objectivity to it (at least historically speaking) which precludes the subjectivity of opinion, popularity or even basic understanding.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH By that logic, reality is not its own thing, but rather the sum of all thoughts and that sum necessarily includes ideas which are in opposition to the larger pool.
Too, it lacks a concrete arbiter for determining reality: based on mean, median?
And, it must stand outside of itself while also being part of the equation: cannot make a truth statement witho ...[text shortened]... y speaking) which precludes the subjectivity of opinion, popularity or even basic understanding.
I think Berkeley had a supermind for the purpose of specifying a canonical reality. The absence of a canonical reality is really only a problem if two minds have contradictory realities and notice the contradiction. One could posit some sort of Nietzschean struggle of wills to determine the shared reality, where the stronger will determines what truth is.
Originally posted by DeepThought I think Berkeley had a supermind for the purpose of specifying a canonical reality. The absence of a canonical reality is really only a problem if two minds have contradictory realities and notice the contradiction. One could posit some sort of Nietzschean struggle of wills to determine the shared reality, where the stronger will determines what truth is.
I vaguely recall reading along these lines a few years ago (okay: twenty...), but I will def need to give it a fresher set of eyes.
"We came, we saw, he died"
09 May '17 23:09
YouTube
Back to Top