/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4869791
I never said my actions affect the intention of others. He literally DIDN'T ask me to 100% prove it. It's his fault for the miscommunication, not mine. You gave counter examples for why it doesn't 100% imply what I said, but you still had to posit alternative explainations. But the more evidence I gave, the more complex your explaination became. That's an ad hoc.

"How did you prove it, blah blah blah blah ridiculously complex ad hocs somehow disproved it"

Again, prove here is not 100% proven. It's coming to the best explanation given the experiments that you CAN do.

Everything I said, implies either they are two different objects, or it's a complex reflection based on space mirrors, that only reflect the one object and never refelect any other objects, and somehow goes over the entire world and changes randomly with during the day and night. Or whatever other batshit crazy ad hoc you can think up. From our perspective only, without any advanced tech, the logically superior position and the one that has the simpliest proof that doesn't ADD shit to it is: they aren't one in the same.