/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9757991
I am not denying those [sets of laws], rather instead I am favoring these. Truly I could do no damage to the theories that have been hardened up for century with out sufficient time spent crawling up those theories. I hope to do no thing like that actually as all I wish to do is explore the older set of theories up to a certain point.

The reasoning on the latter of your post where you boast that anyone who does not believe this must be delusional is not a good look anon. Siding with a majority no matter how large for simple sake of it's size is categorically unattractive. I would have much rather heard some personal retelling of how you cam to know and experience these laws by your own hand. The situation about that is you could tell of those things, but instead may lay claim to another's understanding that you have understood. I find irony in this concept as no man knows truth from outside the self. You, and you alone are the arbiter of what is true; which is not to say you may assign fantasy to reality and call it that but rather your understanding of the reality before you is personally verified. When someone claims 2+2=5, clearly you would want them to demonstrate how this could be as you know 2+2=4, easily using your hands in front of you demonstrating that. But what if what I was adding was not their amounts, but rather the space between. Holding your four fingers in front of you there are three spaces between, and one on either side, thus five. Context is obviously relevant, and I fear we have lost the idea of creating your own context rather than being taught "what must be the case" as time goes on that information is bound to change thus i would rather seek information my self to establish with experience and reasoning what may be true. Even still I rather not dirty my hands with the word truth as it's a silly concept, just as that of facts.

I should expect to be lit on fire for such language.