/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15413782
>So what do you call them yourself? If solid, liquid, gas and plasma are not the four states of matter, then they are the four states of what?

Ice, steam and water are just "water". These "States" are not "of matter", they are "of causal link to geomancy of hydrogen/oxygen combo". 3 different names for one cause and the "cause" is uncaused when discussed into great detail (for from nothing comes nothing). You can call "it" whatever you want, the point is that that "it" isn't anything specific at all which is how "it" produces the plethora of things for you to name. "The Universe/"the One"/"God"...many names, but the problem is that names and descriptions have more biased implications then simply discussing the principles of (name a cause).
Basically I would not call it anything or try my hardest to not mention the name.

>Fill in the blank
That's what nature does. It abhors a vacuum. The filling is not yet full and the actions of something are indistinguishable from the "thing in and of itself". You can call the product anything from "cotton candy" to "diamonds", but ultimately it's made of the same stuff put into motion.

>>14714090
>I have won the debate
You told me to argue over it and then you admitted that there was nothing substantially to argue over in the first place and thus negated your own argument over what you believe has no basis in reality in the first place. I literally did nothing but accurately describe what you did, and you got butthurt over it.

It's the same reason why lawyers won't object or will half ass their client through what everyone knows will be a mistrial. Any actual tryharding goes to waste because it doesn't matter and nothing said has any meaning other than to further be used against you.