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
he looked at the moon and called the moon Moon.
he looked at the moon and called the moon Moon.
Roughly, it goes like this:
That's not the question. How did the information about the moon get to man?
All right, let's not pull anyone's tail.
man received information about the moon through electromagnetic waves of the visible spectrum, waves! man closed his eyes and the waves ceased to exist around him? - No, the waves with information are still travelling in space without that fool of a man!
In fact, man is in the surrounding and piercing waves carrying information about everything (we mean the waves that have reached man). information about everything is everywhere.
the fact that man has invented how to store and process information does not change anything, it is only a way for man to understand the world around him, he understands it as he can, as his mind allows him to understand it. but we have not even started to consider here what isotropy has to do with the completeness of information, and this is very important for understanding how one can know the composition of distant planets and stars, how one can build spaceships and grow new kinds of plants. moving information in space allows one to walk on the Moon, without moving information in space.
That's not the question. How did information about the moon get to man?
Data perception -》 Data analysis -》 Summarising data into an object -》 Naming the object.... and so on.
No, information about the Moon is available to the whole Universe, wherever electromagnetic waves can reach, nothing depends on man and has nothing to do with the mind.
Yes, sometimes new ideas meet resistance in the psyche of individuals. One of the reasons may be unwillingness to recognise their old knowledge as outdated (or at least incomplete), which leads to insisting on "their own". This is something like inflicting offence on someone who was sure they already knew everything, which they seem not to. The "crown" doesn't want to come off your head. It's all the more amusing when the possibility of leaving the old and enriching with the new (for they are essentially non-contradictory to each other) has been pointed out.
I don't know who exactly you are referring to, but if it's me, I will say that I have no crown. There is a reasonable and logical position that I continue to develop.
Yes, I'm referring to you. Please don't take offence, I may well be wrong about the reasons for your insistence on denial and a different angle on what is being discussed.
Yes, I meant you. Please do not take offence, I may well be wrong about the reasons for your persistence in denial and a different perspective on what is being discussed.