/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15249067
>evolve
Does this happen more often to younger women who aren't "fully grown adults"?

>>15249243
Unfortunately that "curse" inspired them to doom us all with the poisoned water now.

>>10771264
>"this iron core has a bunch of fucking elements that are diamagnetic around it that nerfs the field."
basically

>>10771268
>>10771282

"time doesn't exist"
"except when measured by two observers"

So which is it? I'm trying to figure out what this contradiction is supposed to mean. Saying "time exists" is like saying "a meter exists", a meter OF WHAT? The "Of what" being the actual phenomena and "time" being the measurement using in the language of mathematics.

You're basically saying a language is a phenomena with properties that acts upon something. Technically this is true, but only to the degree that we let ourselves be wavered by the language. It would only happen NON PHYSICALLY and synthesized instantaneously.
Aka "meet me at 10 o clock", is not a force that impels to do something.

>>10771285
That's a medium though, not "Time".

>>10749803
>Why would it not be okay. We know how they behave and thus know what they are.

>here is a shadow, we see it and it's empirically observable and measurable
>it behaves and does something
>yep a shadow is definitely a thing
>despite being an attribute of something else with no basis or grounding in reality on it's own.
>Yes the absence of something that actually exists is in itself a "thing".

"No"

>>10707135
>dude, you're trolling. you clearly just can't wrap your head around the idea of us being surrounded by a big bunch of NOTHINGNESS!!! NOTHINGNESS that extends for Billions and Billions of lightyears! you probably don't even know what the cosmic microwave background is. get out of here already

Huh, maybe because there's nothing there to wrap my head around.

>>10452405
>guy simply mentions discord

>you reply with rent free paranoia

Wow, not that guy but maybe there's something to what YOU said.

>>10428799
Why do you folks always ride bicycles and wear suits?

>>10428819
I'm basically saying that if OP doesn't even know what philosophy is and is simply taking someone's word for it, then it's a really big mistake to just despise it. How do you despise what you don't even know?

>That's a useless fucking question when you use philosophy to answer it

>it's a complicated chain of fucking chemical reactions and hormones and a bunch of other shit that has the goal of reproduction.
>goal of reproduction
Yet there are those who love and never think of reproducing. You have not explained what causes love, you described it. Congrats, this is what happens when you use nothing but empirical evidence and "science" to figure shit out.