Posted: Jul 21, 2018 2:23 am
jamest wrote:SafeAsMilk wrote:jamest wrote:This thread is bizarre. Until about the 19th/20th centuries, the definition of sound was something MERELY associated with the experience/sensation of sound via OBSERVERS thereof. Thereafter, OBSERVERS thereof who had studied THE ORDER inherent within their sensations/experiences decided that sound had a second meaning applicable to the world that they were experiencing/observing in the first instance.
Please note and underline the following fact:
This 'modern' definition of sound (along the lines of 'things' vibrating and affecting one another) DOES NOT TRANSCEND experience/sensation. Note too that this applies equally to all science based upon the sensation/experience of 'seeing/observation', more so really when you realise that most science has its basis in what can be 'seen'.
You always assert this, bare-assed, and in complete contradiction to everything we ever observe.
What a fucking wanked-out statement this is. I mean, I've just essentially explained why the metaphysical value of 'observation' is zero and your retort is "we cannot confirm this via observation"!!
Your IQ level has just taken a serious dive.
You didn't explain anything, you asserted, bare-assed, as I said. You wouldn't know an explanation if it slapped you upside the head.
We've already determined that what you find to be of metaphysical value is absolutely worthless, so you can keep that.