pl0bs wrote:

debunk wrote:No, plobs, for you to show me wrong in claiming that there are two states, equal and not equal, you'll have to show that there's a third option. So far you have not done so, which isn't strange, since such an option simply does not exist.

Put yourself in the shoes of a physicalist. Get rid of the arbitrary labels that humans invented and look at the actual physical facts. Do you see an "equal"-property floating around atoms? Do you see a "not-equal" property floating around atoms? I certainly dont, and physics doesnt either. Instead, physics finds that an atom has a number of protons and electrons.

This utterly retarded drivel is not a reply to anything I've said. Stop bloviating, please.

Wow , now pl0bs isn't even making sense.

IIzO wrote:Wow , now pl0bs isn't even making sense.

And he fucking well knows it. He's just trolling, again.

debunk wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

debunk wrote:No, plobs, for you to show me wrong in claiming that there are two states, equal and not equal, you'll have to show that there's a third option. So far you have not done so, which isn't strange, since such an option simply does not exist.

Put yourself in the shoes of a physicalist. Get rid of the arbitrary labels that humans invented and look at the actual physical facts. Do you see an "equal"-property floating around atoms? Do you see a "not-equal" property floating around atoms? I certainly dont, and physics doesnt either. Instead, physics finds that an atom has a number of protons and electrons.

This utterly retarded drivel is not a reply to anything I've said. Stop bloviating, please.

Did you pick your name because you get debunked so much?

pl0bs wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:You have consistently denied any of the boundaries that would allow for anything to actually be real.

Not me, physics.

you heard of Dennett?

Ive debunked him.

You must have a lot of bunk built up in your bunk account then. (sorry just putting myself into your shoes)

pl0bs wrote:

debunk wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

debunk wrote:No, plobs, for you to show me wrong in claiming that there are two states, equal and not equal, you'll have to show that there's a third option. So far you have not done so, which isn't strange, since such an option simply does not exist.

Put yourself in the shoes of a physicalist. Get rid of the arbitrary labels that humans invented and look at the actual physical facts. Do you see an "equal"-property floating around atoms? Do you see a "not-equal" property floating around atoms? I certainly dont, and physics doesnt either. Instead, physics finds that an atom has a number of protons and electrons.

This utterly retarded drivel is not a reply to anything I've said. Stop bloviating, please.

Did you pick your name because you get debunked so much?

You are really embarrassing yourself here talking about ions.

pl0bs wrote:

debunk wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

debunk wrote:No, plobs, for you to show me wrong in claiming that there are two states, equal and not equal, you'll have to show that there's a third option. So far you have not done so, which isn't strange, since such an option simply does not exist.

Put yourself in the shoes of a physicalist. Get rid of the arbitrary labels that humans invented and look at the actual physical facts. Do you see an "equal"-property floating around atoms? Do you see a "not-equal" property floating around atoms? I certainly dont, and physics doesnt either. Instead, physics finds that an atom has a number of protons and electrons.

This utterly retarded drivel is not a reply to anything I've said. Stop bloviating, please.

Did you pick your name because you get debunked so much?

Poor little plobs. You'll actually have to show me wrong in order to debunk me. Words have meaning, you know.

debunk wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

debunk wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

debunk wrote:No, plobs, for you to show me wrong in claiming that there are two states, equal and not equal, you'll have to show that there's a third option. So far you have not done so, which isn't strange, since such an option simply does not exist.

Put yourself in the shoes of a physicalist. Get rid of the arbitrary labels that humans invented and look at the actual physical facts. Do you see an "equal"-property floating around atoms? Do you see a "not-equal" property floating around atoms? I certainly dont, and physics doesnt either. Instead, physics finds that an atom has a number of protons and electrons.

This utterly retarded drivel is not a reply to anything I've said. Stop bloviating, please.

Did you pick your name because you get debunked so much?

Poor little plobs. You'll actually have to show me wrong in order to debunk me. Words have meaning, you know.

I really have no idea why the mods aren't issuing warnings to him for trolling. Apparently they believe that he is really being serious here.

I see ive rattled the cage with the power of my arguments.

Does anyone here still believe the world is physically divided into just two options:
- equal number of protons/electrons
- an unequal number of protons/electrons
?

Or do you now all realise that there are far more options, just to name a few:
Protons/electrons
1/1
1/2
1/3
2/2
2/1
2/3
(etc.)
?

pl0bs wrote:
Does anyone here still believe the world is physically divided into just two options:
- equal number of protons/electrons
- an unequal number of protons/electrons
?

Or do you now all realise that there are far more options, just to name a few:
Protons/electrons
1/1 =equal
1/2 =not equal
1/3 =not equal
2/2 =equal
2/1 =not equal
2/3 =not equal
(etc.)
?

You haven't shown more options, all your examples are either an equal amount or not an equal amount of protons and electrons.

pl0bs wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:You have consistently denied any of the boundaries that would allow for anything to actually be real.

Not me, physics.

you heard of Dennett?

Ive debunked him.

No, you claim to have debunked him; not the same thing. Your assertions & specious arguments count for fuck all. Evidence & reason count for a good deal more though.

Your arrogant & inflated claims regarding your abilities & successes point to narcissism. Not an attractive trait.

No way he isn't just trolling!

pl0bs you are awesome

debunk wrote:

pl0bs wrote:
Does anyone here still believe the world is physically divided into just two options:
- equal number of protons/electrons
- an unequal number of protons/electrons
?

Or do you now all realise that there are far more options, just to name a few:
Protons/electrons
1/1 =equal
1/2 =not equal
1/3 =not equal
2/2 =equal
2/1 =not equal
2/3 =not equal
(etc.)
?

You haven't shown more options, all your examples are either an equal amount or not an equal amount of protons and electrons.

Too bad "equal" and "not-equal" arent physical properties. They are arbitrary labels invented by humans. Btw, why dont you also include the categories "less equal", "even less equal", "even less equal than less equal", and "even less equal than even less equal", etc.?

In fact, even numbers are platonic concepts. You want to say that 2 protons/2 electrons is equal, but what exactly is equal about them? Is a proton exactly the same as an electron? Do they exist at the exact same location? All you have is the equality of the numbers.

pl0bs wrote:

debunk wrote:

pl0bs wrote:
Does anyone here still believe the world is physically divided into just two options:
- equal number of protons/electrons
- an unequal number of protons/electrons
?

Or do you now all realise that there are far more options, just to name a few:
Protons/electrons
1/1 =equal
1/2 =not equal
1/3 =not equal
2/2 =equal
2/1 =not equal
2/3 =not equal
(etc.)
?

You haven't shown more options, all your examples are either an equal amount or not an equal amount of protons and electrons.

Too bad "equal" and "not-equal" arent physical properties.

What does that have to do with anything?

They are arbitrary labels invented by humans.

You hear that, folks, equal and not equal are arbitrary. You heard it here first!

Btw, why dont you also include the categories "less equal", "even less equal", "even less equal than less equal", and "even less equal than even less equal", etc.?

Because those concepts have no meaning in this context.

In fact, even numbers are platonic concepts.

Stop trolling, please.

You want to say that 2 protons/2 electrons is equal

I've warned you not to misrepresent my position. Reported.

but what exactly is equal about them? Is a proton exactly the same as an electron? Do they exist at the exact same location? All you have is the equality of the numbers.

Good thing I made it very clear I was talking about the equality of the numbers (and therefore charges, making the net charge 0).

debunk wrote:

pl0bs wrote:Too bad "equal" and "not-equal" arent physical properties.

What does that have to do with anything?

Good thing I made it very clear I was talking about the equality of the numbers (and therefore charges, making the net charge 0).

Oh, its just that this was about the idea that saltness has some physical property that isnt part of a continuum.

You now think its not relevent that the property you have been talking about, isnt physical? (which is what ive been saying all along)

pl0bs wrote:

debunk wrote:

pl0bs wrote:Too bad "equal" and "not-equal" arent physical properties.

What does that have to do with anything?

Good thing I made it very clear I was talking about the equality of the numbers (and therefore charges, making the net charge 0).

Why the mangled quote? You snipped out what the last sentence there is actually a reply to. How dishonest of you.

Oh, its just that this was about the idea that saltness has some physical property that isnt part of a continuum.

No, it wasn't, it was about your claim that there was no salt property that can completely vanish. There is and it can.

You now think its not relevent that the property you have been talking about, isnt physical? (which is what ive been saying all along)

[/quote]

Pl0bs, why do you keep erecting these retarded straw men? Don't you want to be taken seriously?

debunk wrote:Why the mangled quote? You snipped out what the last sentence there is actually a reply to. How dishonest of you.

They highlight the fact that you havent been talking about a physical property. The terms "equal" and "unequal" that you used in relation to the number of protons/electrons not only have been debunked to be the only two physical states of atoms, but on top of that they (by your own admission) refer only to the platonic concepts of numbers.

There is nothing left to do except to conclude that your schism of ionised/deionised is merely an artifact of humans arbitrarily labelling two categories of numbers, while physically there is a continuum of states.

Which is precisely what ive been saying all along.

pl0bs wrote:

debunk wrote:Why the mangled quote? You snipped out what the last sentence there is actually a reply to. How dishonest of you.

They highlight the fact that you havent been talking about a physical property.

Net charge isn't a physical property now? Really, pl0bs?

The terms "equal" and "unequal" that you used not only have been debunked to be the only two physical properties of atoms

Show me where I've made this claim. Wait, you can't, since it's yet another straw man.

but on top of that they (by your own admission) refer only to the platonic concepts of numbers

No, they refer to the number of electrons and protons, not numbers as platonic concepts. Do you comprehend the difference?

There is nothing left to do except to conclude that your schism of ionised/deionised is merely an artifact of humans arbitrarily labelling two categories of numbers, while physically there is a continuum of states.

Logic really isn't your forte.

Which is precisely what ive been saying all along.

No, what you've been saying is, and I paraphrase, "wharblgarbl hurr durr".

debunk wrote:Net charge isn't a physical property now? Really, pl0bs?

Is there a continuum of electric charge? Yes or no?

pl0bs wrote:

debunk wrote:Net charge isn't a physical property now? Really, pl0bs?

Is there a continuum of electric charge? Yes or no?

No, it's quantised.