Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I'm saying that you personally cannot be in two places at once.That is an absolute.
If you don't believe me then prove me wrong, (physically) come to where I am without leaving where you are and this will end this discussion post- haste.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The chances of me being in two places at the same time are very, very, very, very, very low, however, it is not zero.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You have no idea what you are talking about. The chances of me being in two places at the same time are very, very, very, very, very low, however, it is not zero.
For you it is zero.
Fact: there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares.
This is an absolute statement.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No you cannot.
Quantum entanglement is real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
That means you can be in two places at the same time, however that probability is very low.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
For you it is zero.Fact: there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares.
This is an absolute statement.
The word square and circle are names we have given to objects. A square cannot be a circle only by definition. This has nothing to do with absolutes.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Quantum entanglement is real.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
That means you can be in two places at the same time, however that probability is very low.
*Sigh*
Again, quantum mechanics deals with things at the subatomic level. I am not talking about at that level. So your link is not valid.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
*Sigh*Again, quantum mechanics deals with things at the subatomic level. I am not talking about at that level. So your link is not valid.
You act like the quantum world is separate from this world. The quantum world is this world. Like I said; the problem is you using the word absolute.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You act like the quantum world is separate from this world. The quantum world is this world. Like I said; the problem is you using the word absolute.
Why can you see the difference between a square and a circle but not between quantum level and what I am talking about?
For example, if am talking about squares and I say I like green ones but I don't like grey ones and my whole discussion is about squares why would you introduce circles into the conversation?
I just said that I am talking about squares (humans) not circles (quantum level particles) so why do you keep shifting the discussion over to circles when I am only referring to squares?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Why can you see the difference between a square and a circle but not between quantum level and I what I am talking about?For example, if am talking about squares and I say I like green ones but I don't like grey ones and my whole discussion is about squares why would you introduce circles into the conversation?
I just said that I am talking about squares (humans) not circles (quantum level particles) so why do you keep shifting the discussion over to circles when I am only referring to squares?
Because you used the word absolute. If you want to change to within reason, then we can continue.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No it is not. They are just words that have meaning in our minds. If a square was a circle it would not be a square, but a circle.
This is what I mean when I say that your stance has no merit because you invariably digress, redefine what I am talking about (i.e. resort to semantics), or compel me to repeat myself constantly.
All because you cannot admit that I am right.
It's okay though.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
This is what I mean when I say that your stance has no merit because you invariably digress, redefine what I am talking about (i.e. resort to semantics), or compel me to repeat myself constantly.All because you cannot admit that I am right.
It's okay though.
Your entire argument was hinging on the idea that things are absolute. You cannot fault me for identifying the weak part of your argument and then attacking that.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because you used the word absolute. If you want to change to within reason, then we can continue.
Fact: squares are squares and not circles and circles are circles and not squares. This is an absolute statement.
Fact: up is up and not down and down is down and not up. And they are opposite directions. This is an absolute statement.
Fact: black is black and not white and white is white and not black. This is an absolute statement.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your entire argument was hinging on the idea that things are absolute. You cannot fault me for identifying the weak part of your argument and then attacking that.
You have resorted to semantics to back out of the discussion. I'm still maintaining my stance right where I began the discussion. I haven't even budged because I know that I am right.
You cannot be in two places at once (and I am talking about you not quantum particles). This is still an absolute.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Fact: squares are squares and not circles and circles are circles and not squares. This is an absolute statement.
By definition only, this is not absolute.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Fact: up is up and not down and down is down and not up. And they are opposite directions. This is an absolute statement.
By definition only, this is not absolute.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Fact: black is black and not white and white is white and not black. This is an absolute statement.
By definition only, this is not absolute.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You have resorted to semantics to back out of the discussion. I'm still maintaining my stance right where I began the discussion. I haven't even budged because I know that I am right.You cannot be in two places at once (and I am talking about you not quantum particles). This is still an absolute.
It is highly improbable, but it is not absolute.