You’ll have to explain further the point of this thread?
It means that we don't know whether they will or they wont buy ice cream.
The shortest unit of time perhaps being the 'Planck time' .. some 10**-43 seconds if I recall correctly.
What is "time"? What is a "moment"?
"infinite time between any two moments" is impossible?
I am basically saying something circular is never the same as something non-circular.
I would like to see your justification. Why would that be the case?
"You can't square a circle" isn't simple about the shapes/definitions of the shapes of squares and circles.
But then police won't have knowledge, either. Police uses knowledge to nab crimianls, and the justice system uses knowledge to discourage criminal activity. If the police has no knowledge, they are helpless in catching criminals. — god must be atheist
Why did you start another thread about this? You're the one who started the first thread a few days ago.
Space doesn't bend, spacetime curves around a mass. This means that a clock located within the proximity of a mass will run slower than a clock located away from the mass. It also means that any matter or energy traveling in the proximity of that mass will be influenced by this curvature and its path will bend. We call that curvature gravity.
There isn't any corner either: the corner's moved with the space. Or: the space moving is the corner moving.
What does this mean?.
This circle is not existent at the moment. It has been changed, or it changed, into a triangle.
I thought that the original topic was "change is impossible". Well, it is not. If you change a circle, a triangle, a geodesic tri-point transformation of an ancient Indian burial ground into something else, you've made the change.
I can't see any difficulty there.
Change the stupid circle into a triangle or something. The circle ceases to be a circle, because it was cahnged into a triangle.
Are you sure? Let's put history aside for a moment. Physically understood, what is weight? What is color? Aren't they both reducible to shape in space and time?
Is this a square and a triangle in the same place?
If two shapes were to perfectly occupy all the same spaces, they'd necessarily have the same shape.
If two things are in exactly the same place at the same time, aren't they then just one thing? To say that there are two things that are one thing seems a contradiction.
↪elucid Present a scenario that shows they can.
↪elucid This is just what we mean be the word "object." If some entities - real or imagined - can be at the same place at the same time, such as fields or ghosts, we don't refer to them as "objects." There is no deep metaphysics here, it's just convention.
The Bible, "God's word in human language": the text were written by fallible human beings.
the answer to your question depends on how you define "the same space."
Can god be just if he exceeds the good justice standard that the bible, god’s WORD, claims is just?
One of Zeno's most famous paradox has to do with Achilles never being able to catch a tortoise that's been given a head start in a race because of the impossibility of having to traverse an infinite number of points between the two.
Does it really? When would we be dead? I know you said we would be dead "by now", but when the circle disappears and the square appears, wouldn't there be a square "by now"?
but when the circle disappears and the square appears, wouldn't there be a square "by now"?
If I smash my computer in front of me (which is a square) into a bunch of pieces and then re-arrange those pieces into a circle, didn't a square just become a circle?
Is there a hidden conclusion using the two statements? I can't see it. Kindly clarify it. Thanks.
What about the statement that a circle can't be a square, but it can become one?
↪elucid S accused you of trolling because you are avoiding the actual points people raise, and you are just repeating the same things
You're funny. Change has to do with becoming. That a circle is a circle, and not a square, is irrelevant. It can become one.
I think maybe you're trolling.
Your argument here is that change is impossible. However, if you add certain elements to A, and it becomes B, haven't you produced a change? So even if the law of identity holds, transmutation is a possibility correct? It therefore follow that your second statement is false, and that your first statement is simply the law of identity, which as ↪S pointed out, does not negate transmutation from A to B given particular conditions.
elucid What's that supposed to do with change?
No, you pillock.
I understand and agree with that. Are you going to move on to my queries and objections, or is this all that you are capable of?