You have a technical mind, don't you? - page 9
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
How was the worldview formed?
Man centre (reference point) = earth is flat, thought for a while, no earth is round and revolves around the sun, then thought further and came up with the big bang theory, but didn't change the reference point. As if the explosion took place exactly where we are standing))). The big bang may have been local, I don't argue. But don't bullshit mankind about 13.5 billion.
Since space is infinite and filled with matter, matter in its volume is infinite throughout its extent. Proceeding from the fact that out of nothing nothing can arise anything, then matter existed also infinitely, otherwise it is physically impossible. And as the human brain is not capable to present infinity, it is easier for it to think in finite forms and it is easier for it to accept the fact of origin and creation. So the Big Bang was invented. In practice there was no Big Bang, the Universe has always existed. Try to tell such to a traditional thinker - he at once rebels, but cannot explain.
Therefore the remark about 13,5 billion years is fair.
"4-dimensional" and "2-dimensional. " has nothing to do with physics, because physics is real three-dimensional space, not mathematical space. You can write whatever you want in mathematics, but in reality no other geometric(!) dimensions are orthodoxly impossible(!) to draw to x,y or z. I underline, not temporal, not fantastic, but precisely geometric.
Wrong. Physics quite considers models of motion of a point on a plane and even on a straight line. Dimensionality of phase space in this case will be respectively 4 and 2. Therefore physicists have to consider them in spite of your prohibition.
Wrong. Physics quite considers models of motion of a point on a plane and even on a straight line. The dimensions of phase space will be respectively 4 and 2. Therefore physicists have to consider them in spite of your prohibition.
The key word is "consider". Nobody forbids to consider anything. Another thing is that such approaches are physically useless. Engineers will build in real space, not in a computer program, so they will not build anything.
Since space is infinite and it is filled with matter, matter in its volume is infinite throughout its extent. Proceeding from the fact that nothing can be made out of nothing, matter existed also infinitely, otherwise it is physically impossible. And as the human brain is not capable to present infinity, it is easier for it to think in finite forms and it is easier for it to accept the fact of origin and creation. So the Big Bang was invented. In practice there was no Big Bang, the Universe has always existed. Try to tell such to a traditional thinker - he at once rebels, but cannot explain.
Therefore the remark about 13,5 billion years is fair.
Common sense will not allow you to think otherwise. People are too naive to believe any nonsense. Like with Alyoshenka.
Where is the logic that the mosquito, shark, crocodile etc. have not changed in tens of millions of years and man has suddenly changed from a primate to a human in 50 thousand. Or maybe circumstances drove man into primates and now they are coming back and some still are?)
It takes billions of years to evolve from primitive bacteria into humans.
Besides, it just states the identity of the flat to the volumetric (sheet = surface = plane = volume), for without imposing the "flat" on the volumetric such an experience cannot be mathematically obtained. And reality for sure, because it is not just some counting law that is violated, but precisely the nature of logic.
It talks about the nesting of the flat into the three-dimensional. There is no talk of any identity between them, either mathematically or physically. Otherwise, it would be possible to enclose the 3-dimensional in the 2-dimensional.
About the nature of logic I do not judge, but I have not seen something similar to your statement neither from Frege nor from Russell or elsewhere, so I will be grateful to appropriate references.
The key word is "consider". No one forbids considering anything. Another thing is that such approaches are physically useless. Engineers will build in real space, not in a computer program, so they will not build anything.
I see, now the bans come from engineers, not from physicists and logicians anymore. If I can find you examples of engineers using two-dimensional design (e.g. the blueprints they use to build), will the bans come from the foremen?
I notice that almost all scientists think they are in a shell as far as the span of thought is concerned. But the span is too short to understand space.
If you take one person's neuron as a reference point and draw two vectors in any direction, you get a plane to infinity, but in scientists this plane is still twisted. Because their brain is immersed in a shell, and they cannot get out of it. The earth, for absolutely more than half of the world's population, is flat and the sun revolves around the earth.))) There have been polls like this.
Common sense will not allow you to think otherwise. People are too naive to believe any nonsense. Like with Alyoshenka.
Where is the logic that the mosquito, shark, crocodile etc. have not changed in tens of millions of years and man has suddenly changed from primate to man in 50 thousand. Or maybe circumstances drove man into primates and now they are coming back and some still are?)
It takes billions of years to go from primitive bacteria to human.
Man has never been a primate, and a primate never transforms into a human - missing the 1st chromosome, primates have 61 out of a possible 64 and humans have 62. Why the 2 possible variants are not used is not clear. It is possible that super-humans with 63 and unicums with 64 chromosomes in genes will appear.
A monopolist can shape both demand and price itself - for example, Apple. After all, an iPhone is not just a smartphone to its fan.
For one thing, it is not. Demand can be influenced by various marketing methods, but you can't shape it much. All these expensive "iPhones" are just an ordinary Ego, expressed in a device. In other words, there is no "demand creation" - there has always been demand for "arrogance", they just managed to direct it in the right direction, and it all depends on "getting into the flow" and not on whether there is a monopolist or not.
The 90s were a paradise for pop stars: any trifle was easy to get an audience, and lucky ones were able to gather stadiums. Laskovy Mai was a "monopolist", would you say? No, he just "got into the swing of it". The excitement died down, and the pop scene's super-profits deflated.
And secondly, even if someone had the ability to "shape demand" (not just influence it, but shape it), this would also absolutely not cancel out the principles of price formation, which does not depend on anything but the balance of supply and demand.