>>14566

>if he says measurement, you can't assume he's asking about structure

But when he begins talking about physical behaviors, you can.

>but the difference isn't necessarily in the placement of objects.

It is when he specifically notes that the placement of objects has changed.

As for the two quotes, I assume you read them as conflicting. In fact, they are perfectly complementary. An actual change in position, say between two scenarios, that does not involve a kinetic movement, is describable as an apparent motion. A change in physical location, not over time, but across examples.

>>An actual change in position is describable as an apparent motion

so is a change in measured location. and since he was talking about measurements...

>>14570

In that case, what two scenarios would be being compared? A difference between measurements based on different properties of the Planck length is still fundamentally
a question of different physical properties of space.

The Planck Length isn't the smallest unit of measure possible, it's simply the smallest unit of measure that means something. Anything smaller than a Planck Length, you'd just be measuring empty space.

Upon reading a little further into this, I believe what OP is positing would qualify as one of Zeno's Paradoxes known as the Dichotomy Paradox.

It basically goes like this. "Before you can reach your destination, you must get halfway there. However, if you keep dividing distance left to travel in halves, you will never mathematically reach the end."

This is why there's a separation between philosophy and science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#The_dichotomy_paradox

>>14571

in the first one, you have 2 objects 6.5 plancks apart and they measure as 6.5 apart. in the second, you have 2 objects 6.5 apart and the distance appears to fluctuate or just gets rounded, depending on whether the device allows you to directly measure or just does it for you. although technically the first scenario could also involve fluctuations, and the measurement is an average of different results and comes with an error statement of +/- some amount

>appears to fluctuate

Except that he indicates a change in physical position.

>>14527
>Wow, never expected to see this level of stupidity on /sci/ From Google: square root(2) = 1.41421356

Oh for fucks sake, if you're going to call people stupid, at very least look up what they're talking about beyond the first google result, which in your case was a calculator simply rounding the irrational number to 8 places. Thanks, your brilliance.

Since I'm so fucking stupid I won't bother to explain it to your genius ass, but just point you in the direction of a primer on this sliver of basic 7th grade arithmetic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2

>>14582

>so is a change in measured location. and since he was talking about measurements...

>>14584

Except he stresses it is an actual change in location, and not simply a change in measurement.

>But it generally described with the same general layman's terms, and as the questioner stressed, he is a layman.

also he says arbitrarily. if he was asking about the reason behind it, he wouldn't have said that since it then wouldn't be arbitrary. but he did so he's clearly only interested in what would be observed.

>>14589

But he asks not simply if the measurement would change, he asks if the object's position would change to align with said measurement.

>>But he asks not simply if the measurement would change

how can you tell he's not talking about the measurement? both alternatives appear the same and are described with the same words. they're equally plausible, except that he was talking about measurements in every other sentence so it's more likely that he was also talking about measurement in this one.

>>14593
>it's more likely that he was also talking about measurement in this one.

Except he changes the focus of his terminology. He was not describing measurements in physical terms throughout. He speaks of measurements, and then after that he uses the terminology of physicality.

>>He was not describing measurements in physical terms throughout

what is that supposed to mean

>>14600

It means he was consistent in his treatment of measurements as measurements, until he mentioned physicality in contrast to that treatment.

he's emphasizing the fact that the object appears to be somewhere it's not. you can't assume there are new premises for one specific question unless it's explicitly stated. and it's definitely not here. his questions are clearly from the point of view of an experimenter, ie, someone who doesn't actually know the location of the objects.

>>14603
>from the point of view of an experimenter

This is reading into the question. His question is from the point of view of someone asking the question.

The switch to physical terms is explicit. If we were to say that he was not referring to an actual change in physical position when he speaks of an actual change in physical position, that would be misinterpreting that explicit meaning.

>>His question is from the point of view of someone asking the question.

no dude, questions are always in the point of view of the person being asked.

>> If we were to say that he was not referring to an actual change in physical position when he speaks of an actual change in physical position

we already went over this. just because you see something move doesn't mean it actually moved. a physical observation doesn't equal a physical phenomenon.

>>14611

We're talking about what the questioner has written. He did not ask "would we see it change positions", he asked "would it change positions".

If you're interpreting it as the first, you are speaking about a question that was never asked.

>>He did not ask "would we see it change positions", he asked "would it change positions".

except he didn't say either of those. he said "arbitrarily move," which is most likely referring to random variation due to inadequate precision given the context.

>>14615

The adverb "arbitrarily" is an attempt by the questioner to show that he is aware that the motion he describes is apparent and not actual. I doubt he knows exactly what the word's specific meanings are.

so he doesn't understand the words he's using and what he wrote isn't what he means. who's being clairvoyant now?

>>14618

I am interpreting it from the context of surrounding words. Mostly the ones that say "would it move" instead of "would we observe a change in position" or "would our measurement change".

did you forget? there's also a difference between "move" and just plain "change position." there's nothing wrong with a literal interpretation of "move" as actual change within the same scenario

>>14621
>as actual change

So now you're agreeing that it conveys an actual spatial change and not merely a change in the measurement?

i've only been going along with your train of thought because i thought you had something, but apparently it all hinges upon some imaginary distinction gleaned by selectively filtering the text of the question. my interpretation was always that the word "move" very plainly referred to and only to the scenario and sentence in which it appeared.

his meaning is very clear if you write out the two possible answers as complete if-then statements.

1. IF we could measure plank lengths between objects, THEN 6.5 lengths would be a valid measurement [for objects 6.5 lengths apart].

i'm pretty sure we both agree on this one. but the next one allegedly has 2 interpretations.

2a. IF we could measure plank lengths between objects [but not lower], THEN objects [6.5 lengths apart] would [appear to be 7 lengths apart].

this is mine and it makes perfect sense.

2b. IF we could measure plank lengths between objects [but not lower], THEN objects would [have to be whole lengths apart because space is quantized].

this is yours and it makes no sense. space quantization is not the only possible reason for not being able to measure lower than planck length. plus, we've agreed that below planck length isn't the main focus of the question; thus, the "but not lower" part is only a circumstantial detail, in which case your interpretation would make even less sense since it would be absurd to think our ability to measure has any effect on the actual structure of space. therefore, mine is right.

>>14628

But those aren't the correct if/then statements.

The correct dichotomy is thus:

IF we could measure finely enough, THEN we would verify that objects were capable of being [6.5 Planck lengths] distance apart.

versus:

IF we could measure finely enough, THEN we would verify that objects which would otherwise be [6.5 Planck lengths] distance apart would instead actually be [7 Planck lengths] distance apart.


Let's look at the fundamental question, which is "would it move (or would it not move)?".

This is a yes or no question. There are, by definition, two scenarios described explicitly by this question.

The first is a scenario in which, yes, the object will physically change location to occupy a position that is describable (by us) by equally spaced increments of [distance x].

The second is a scenario in which the answer to the question is no, and the object is free to occupy any position.

Are you with me so far?

dude, your if-then statements have nothing to do with the original post. mine use all the original text except for the part in question. you're clearly just making up your own question.

and, in addition to not actually following the original post, your statements also contradict your own points. if the antecedent were really "if we could measure finely enough," then we would have to be looking at at least half planck length precision. but as you've said yourself, he's not asking about measuring lower than planck length. he's asking about the results of measuring below the level of precision.

>>we would verify that objects which would otherwise be [6.5 Planck lengths] distance apart would instead actually be [7 Planck lengths] distance apart

this reveals a lack of understanding that i had suspected in you all along. i already told you anyone trying to answer this question within the bounds of the hypothetical won't be able to tell the difference between 6.5 and 7. how are you supposed to know things "would otherwise be" 6.5 apart when you can't even measure 6.5?

>>14640
>he's asking about the results of measuring below the level of precision

No, he's asking "will it change location". If you assert that he is asking solely about the consequences of a measurement, then you are asserting that he is asking whether or not the measurement will cause the new position.

>how are you supposed to know things "would otherwise be" 6.5 apart

Because otherwise we would have to ignore the inclusion of an actual change in location. The single question asked, "would it move", would be made into a non-sequitur.

To repeat what you are avoiding:

Let's look at the fundamental question, which is "would it move (or would it not move)?".

This is a yes or no question. There are, by definition, two scenarios described explicitly by this question.

The first is a scenario in which, yes, the object will physically change location to occupy a position that is describable (by us) by equally spaced increments of [distance x].

The second is a scenario in which the answer to the question is no, and the object is free to occupy any position.

Are you with me so far?

let me say it again: dude, your if-then statements have nothing to do with the original post. mine use all the original text except for the part in question. you're clearly just making up your own question.

>>No, he's asking "will it change location".

let me say this again too: how does the ability to measure change the actual location of an object? the antecedent must be both necessary AND sufficient.

>>If you assert that he is asking solely about the consequences of a measurement, then you are asserting that he is asking whether or not the measurement will cause the new position.

i'm asserting that the measurement will cause a measured value.

>>Because otherwise we would have to ignore the inclusion of an actual change in location. The single question asked, "would it move", would be made into a non-sequitur.

that's not what i said to you. i said if space quantization is proved by being able to "verify that objects which would otherwise be [6.5 Planck lengths] distance apart would instead actually be [7 Planck lengths] distance apart," how can you actually do that if you can't even measure 6.5 or even have objects at 6.5.

let me say this again too just in case: seeing something move doesn't actually mean it moved. measuring a different value doesn't mean the value changed. especially if it's for no apparent reason, ie, arbitrarily.

>>To repeat what you are avoiding: Let's look at the fundamental question, which is "would it move (or would it not move)?".

i already told you that's wrong. the question is would the measurement be estimated or rounded.

>>14644
>seeing something move doesn't actually mean it moved.

Which would be a valid point if the question was "would we see it move", but the question is "would it move".

>how does the ability to measure change the actual location of an object?
That is something I am waiting for you to tell me. There is an actual (not merely observed) change in location described, so either the measurement causes the change, or simply allows it to be verified. Which makes more sense to you?

>the question is would the measurement be estimated or rounded.

Which I already told you, turns the only stated question into a non-sequitur, making the whole thing no longer a question into a string of gibberish.

You are talking about a question that was never asked. I am talking about the one and only explicitly asked question in the entire source.

So the only explicitly asked question is "would it move (or would it not move)?".

This is a yes or no question. There are, by definition, two scenarios described explicitly by this question.

The first is a scenario in which, yes, the object will physically change location to occupy a position that is describable (by us) by equally spaced increments of [distance x].

The second is a scenario in which the answer to the question is no, and the object is free to occupy any position.

Are you with me so far?

>>Which would be a valid point if the question was "would we see it move", but the question is "would it move".

how do you know something moved other than to observe it? apparent change and actual change are described the same way by laymen.

also the most you can do with this line of argument is prove that mine is inconsistent, but it isn't. i said he's talking in context of measurements and observations, which means the movement referred to is an observed movement.

>>That is something I am waiting for you to tell me.

you're the one claiming it does. necessary and sufficient bro. maybe you should try rewriting your if-then statements. this time use some actual text and see if it makes any sense instead of raping a thesaurus.

>>There is an actual (not merely observed) change in location described, so either the measurement causes the change, or simply allows it to be verified. Which makes more sense to you?

neither of them makes sense. the former for obvious reasons and the latter because you can't verify something you can only detect half of. i'm sure you've heard the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. you can't prove there are no lower distances just by measuring. you have to work out the theory and implications and make a testable hypothesis. there is emphasis on testable.

>>Which I already told you, turns the only stated question into a non-sequitur, making the whole thing no longer a question into a string of gibberish.

see above

>>14652
>apparent change and actual change

I like how you're trying to throw words back at me when you haven't read them.

It's apparent movement, and actual change. The description of apparent movement (because actual movement would be change over time and there is no time aspect involved) describes a change in physical position which depends on the answer to the question.

> the movement referred to is an observed movement

But not solely observed. Observed not incorrectly through a quirk of measurement, but correctly in actuality.

>you're the one claiming it does.

No, I'm specifically claiming that it doesn't. In light of the actual change in position referred to, the reference to hypothetical measurement is to permit hypothetical verification of actual position. As I said, there is an actual (not merely observed) change in location described, so either the measurement causes the change, or simply allows it to be verified. Which makes more sense to you? You seem to agree with me that the first is not sensible. The second, then, is the logical conclusion based on what is actually written.

>neither of them makes sense.

Then in light of the actual explicit question, specifically "does it change position?", what bearing does the reference to measurement have? I'm willing to entertain other suggestions as to what relationship the measurement has to the difference in position.

>>I like how you're trying to throw words back at me when you haven't read them.

where did i say those were your words? you jumping to conclusions again?

>>But not solely observed

one predicate can't have 2 subjects bro, unless they're conjoined. i don't see any conjunctions in that sentence. if he's talking about observations, then he's not talking about actual position.

>>No, I'm specifically claiming that it doesn't.

you did. i told you your if then statements didn't make sense. if you're not saying that you can measure 6.5 (which is the only way you could verify that something should be at 6.5 through pure measurement), then you're saying
>IF we could measure finely enough, THEN [space would be quantized]

>>The second, then, is the logical conclusion based on what is actually written.

no, it's based on the assumption that he's talking about actual positions rather than just observations. i already told you that you can't prove something doesn't exist by looking for it. also see above about your if-then statements and 6.5

>>Then in light of the actual explicit question, specifically "does it change position?", what bearing does the reference to measurement have?

i already told you, it's "is there an observed difference in position from actual." and before you go "herp derp how does the experimenter know the actual position," he doesn't. but my if-then statement doesn't claim that you can verify anything to that degree like yours does.

>>14657

>if he's talking about observations, then he's not talking about actual position.

Unless he's talking about observing the actual position.

If he isn't talking about actual position, then the single explictly asked question, "will it move?" becomes null, and the source no longer a question. It becomes the equivalent of something like, "If the answer must be no, is the answer yes or no?".

If the intent of the premise necessitates that "6.5 Planck lengths" is an impossible measurement, the subsequent question of whether or not it is possible becomes instantly null.

>the assumption that he is talking about actual positions

Which is based on the single explicit question asked. All modifiers and qualifiers must be interpreted in light of the actual question asked, or the interpretation has no foundation.

>>Unless he's talking about observing the actual position.

which is an observation and therefore subject to the properties of observations.

>>If he isn't talking about actual position, then the single explictly asked question, "will it move?" becomes null, and the source no longer a question. It becomes the equivalent of something like, "If the answer must be no, is the answer yes or no?". If the intent of the premise necessitates that "6.5 Planck lengths" is an impossible measurement, the subsequent question of whether or not it is possible becomes instantly null.

what does this have to do with my argument? if that's what he said then that's what he said. maybe he couldn't work out the implications himself. triviality aside, there's nothing grammatically or structurally wrong with that question.

and you're the one who said that his premise "necessitates" that 6.5 is impossible in the first place. i honestly don't even know why you brought this up when clearly the triviality arises not from the movement question, but from the first question, which isn't even in dispute. or are you actually going to tell me it would make sense if he was talking about space quantization? even if he were talking about space quantization the premise and first question would still be the same.

>>Which is based on the single explicit question asked. All modifiers and qualifiers must be interpreted in light of the actual question asked, or the interpretation has no foundation.

lol what are you even saying? the questions are subject to the premise. do you not know what the words necessary and sufficient mean? the premise is the fucking foundation.

and the premise is subject to the context of the discussion. wasn't this your exact justification for why he wasn't asking about lower than planck length? you were right then and that's why i conceded that point. but now you're in the same situation and instead of admitting it you're just spewing bullshit?

>>14660
>maybe he couldn't work out the implications himself.

Agreed. Having established this, the question which is explicitly about certain of these implications means that in terms of the question these are not foregone conclusions.

>you're the one who said that his premise "necessitates" that 6.5 is impossible in the first place

No, I'm the one who said that the question is about whether or not 6.5 is physically possible. If the premise necessitated that, there would be no question.

>even if he were talking about space quantization the premise and first question would still be the same.

And that premise would still be "imagine we could measure distances between objects in macguffin units." A premise involving both measurements and physical relationships.

And that question would still be "would we find that objects are capable of being (integer).5 macguffin units apart OR would we find that objects must assume distances (integer) macguffin units apart.

The question is explicitly about physical position, the premise explicitly mentions physical position, and you admit the asker as a layman is unaware of the specific implications of mentioning measuring Planck length.

>>Having established this, the question which is explicitly about certain of these implications means that in terms of the question these are not foregone conclusions.

i don't know what this means, but i'll assume you're saying the same as your last paragraph

>>whether or not 6.5 is physically possible

which requires types of information not mentioned anywhere in his post, therefore has nothing to do with his question.

>>If the premise necessitated that, there would be no question.

the premise necessitates neither the existence nor the non-existence of smaller intervals, but only our inability to measure them, which is something you said first.

>>And that premise would still be "imagine we could measure distances between objects in macguffin units." A premise involving both measurements and physical relationships.

no, that's just measurements. it says nothing about physical locations other than that they exist, ie, the focus is on measurements like i said.

>>And that question would still be "would we find that objects are capable of being (integer).5 macguffin units apart OR would we find that objects must assume distances (integer) macguffin units apart.

i was talking about the first question moron, which is what you brought up. did you forget already? you should try scrolling up once in a while since you clearly have no sense of consistency.

anyway, the first question would be asking about .5 units when clearly the premise states no information can be determined on that subject no matter what your interpretation is. this has nothing to do with my argument, yet you brought it up anyway, which shows how hard you're grasping at straws.

and just because a question is trivial, does that mean that the question was never asked? that it doesn't exist? if i'm breaking into a house and i say "If the answer must be no, is the answer yes or no?" nobody will hear me?

>>The question is explicitly about physical position the premise explicitly mentions physical position,

lol no. see above

>>and you admit the asker as a layman is unaware of the specific implications of mentioning measuring Planck length.

i said maybe. and even if he is unaware, how does that mean he's suddenly asking about even deeper implications? how can he be asking something he isn't even aware of? don't use this as an excuse to ignore everything in his post just because you're running out of ideas. or are you trying your hand at being a clairvoyant?

>>14670
>types of information not mentioned
Except in the premise which explicitly mentions spatial relationship, and in the question which explicitly refers to it.

>the focus is on measurements
The focus is on neither until focus is specifically placed. The question explicitly referring to spatial position places the focus.

>the first question[,] moron
There is only one question. If you ask "Would it be A? Or would it instead be B?", you are asking one question, "Would it be A or B?"

The one single explicitly asked question we are discussing is, "Would the object be capable of occupying the position described previously, or would it instead occupy the latter described position?"

>clearly the premise states no information can be determined
We already established that this is an inference on your part that cannot be "clearly" attributed to the questioner or the question. The premise is not "imagine no information of type x could be determined", the premise is "imagine we could measure units between objects".

>nobody will hear me?
They will hear you, but what they hear will not be a question. It will be a statement followed by a request to repeat the stated information.

>suddenly asking about even deeper implications
He is asking what the question explicitly asks, no more, no less.

>don't ... ignore everything in his post
This is a redundant request, because I have consistently been ignoring everything that is NOT explicitly in his post.

>>Except in the premise which explicitly mentions spatial relationship, and in the question which explicitly refers to it

measurements are spatial relationships. derp. and that's not even my point. i said you can't prove or even observe space quantization, even if it exists, by analyzing spatial relationships. which makes the premise pointless, which means you're ignoring the premise.

>>The focus is on neither until focus is specifically placed

the focus was placed moron. is the sentence "we can measure meters" about meters or things that are a meter?

>>There is only one question

a question that has nothing to do with the premise apparently. also two propositions means two sentences. conjunction junction, what's your function?

>>Would the object be capable of occupying the position described previously, or would it instead occupy the latter described position?

there is no position described previously because he's talking about a measurement. you like to throw around the word explicit a lot, but the fact of the matter is, there is no explicit mention of any locations anywhere, or even what exactly is being measured if you look at just the premise and first part of the question. he's obviously interested in the measurements and not the underlying physical arrangements.

>>We already established that this is an inference on your part

no, it's an inference on your part that i agree with because of the text and the "operating definition" established in the thread. yes, this time i actually am throwing your words back at you.

>>a request to repeat the stated information

which is a question. herp derp. if your science teacher lets you have a formula sheet does it make the questions on the test not questions? does that mean nobody ever gets questions wrong that they have the formula for?

>>He is asking what the question explicitly asks, no more, no less. This is a redundant request, because I have consistently been ignoring everything that is NOT explicitly in his post.

see above. if it's so explicit, then why is it my restatements use all the original text while you adamantly refuse to do any sort of restatement without paraphrasing it to shit?

>>14683
>measurements are spatial relationships

False. They are observations of spatial relationships.

>is the sentence "we can measure meters" about meters or things that are a meter?

The sentence "we can measure meters between objects" is about ONE: the distance between objects, TWO: about measuring that distance, and THREE: about expressing it in multiples of a given distance.

>two sentences
Which comprise one question. The second sentence here does not establish a new question, it expands on the first.

The second sentence says "will it move to this position ?".

Will what move? The object in question.

Where would it be moving from? A position previously described.

What is the only position previously described? A set of positions defined as decimal fractions.

So the question is, "is this object capable of occupying non-integer locations, or will it instead be required to occupy unit integer positions."

>there is no position described previously

See above. He is asking about a change in position. This requires a prior position and a new position. The new position is described by example as any integer amount of the given unit.

The only other possible set of positions described is that of the previous sentence. Since this set of positions is defined specifically by the nature of including non-integer amounts of the given unit, this fits in logically in the either-or contrast presented by the question.

>science teacher gives you the formula sheet
If a teacher gave you the ANSWER sheet, the task in front of you would no longer be a test.

>without paraphrasing

How many entries in the dictionary use the exact word it intends to define in the description of what that word means? If paraphrasing was "reading into" a definition, the dictionary would be a pile of gibberish.

>>False. They are observations of spatial relationships.

then that's what he's talking about and not whatever you said before. i'm discussing this elsewhere. the important part here is still your interpretation ignores the premise.

>>The sentence "we can measure meters between objects" is about ONE: the distance between objects, TWO: about measuring that distance, and THREE: about expressing it in multiples of a given distance.

dude that sentence is about distances as much as it is about the objects or the "we." i've said this already. the only thing that the premise says about distances is that they exist. it goes into far more detail about the measurement, which means the focus is on the measurement.

also, #2 and #3 are the same thing.

>>The second sentence says "will it move to this position ?".

it only says that if that's the sentence you start with. if you read from the beginning like the way it was actually written, it's clearly asking about measurements rather than positions.

>>Will what move? The object in question. Where would it be moving from? A position previously described. What is the only position previously described? A set of positions defined as decimal fractions.

so you admit these are all inferences (ie, not explicit) from working backwards (ie, ignoring the premise and the text and context of the entire post up until the part you decided to fixate on).

anyway, like i already said, if you actually read the text, there is no specific position or object previously described. why? because the arrangement isn't the important part.

>>If a teacher gave you the ANSWER sheet, the task in front of you would no longer be a test.

that's not what i said, is it? and the premise here wasn't "it can't be the first choice," was it?

>>How many entries in the dictionary use the exact word it intends to define in the description of what that word means? If paraphrasing was "reading into" a definition, the dictionary would be a pile of gibberish.

except i'm not asking you to define anything. i'm asking you to write out the answers in a if-then statement and see if it makes sense. why do you need to paraphrase for that? the fact that you won't do it without paraphrasing can only mean you can't think of one that fits your interpretation and makes sense.

>>14694
> ignores the premise

It includes all aspects of the premise.

>dude that sentence is about distances as much as it is about the objects

Exactly. It is equally about the objects, the distance between them, and the measurement of that distance. Taking the sentence containing the premise on its own, to say that it is only about measurement data is ignoring equally pertinent parts of a sentence which contains more than the word "measure".

>it only says that if that's the sentence you start with

It says that if you include the sentence. To read it another way, one must ignore the sentence entirely.

>so you admit these are all inferences

I admit that these are necessary to the question asked. If the second sentence of the question did not exist, then there would be no specific focus on spatial relationships. But that second sentence does exist, it does expand on and clarify the question begun in the prior sentence, and it does indicate the focus of the premise.

Your objection stems from a misconception that words and phrases in a sentence or paragraph written in English cannot clarify, modify, or otherwise affect the meaning of words or phrases written previously. If you, or anyone, were capable of demonstrating this misconception to be true, I would happily concede my position.

>that's not what i said, is it?

Of course it isn't, because you were referring to "The answer is A. Is the answer A or B?". We were talking about a premise in which the answer is specifically included outright.

>i'm not asking you to define anything

So you admit that you are not considering the explicit meanings of the words in the question, and the assembly thereof?

>i'm asking you to write out the answers
Arriving at the answers before parsing the question is doing it in reverse.

> the fact that you won't do it without paraphrasing can only mean

that I'm explaining the meanings of the words in a way that does not include the words themselves, because that would be circular and explain nothing.

>>It includes all aspects of the premise. It is equally about the objects, the distance between them, and the measurement of that distance. Taking the sentence containing the premise on its own, to say that it is only about measurement data is ignoring equally pertinent parts of a sentence which contains more than the word "measure".

are you serious? a single-predicate sentence can only have one topic bro.

>>It says that if you include the sentence. To read it another way, one must ignore the sentence entirely.

false on both counts, especially the second. i'm pretty sure we've already gone over in length how movement and/or change in position can be either observed or actual. or did you forget again?

>>Your objection stems from a misconception that words and phrases in a sentence or paragraph written in English cannot clarify, modify, or otherwise affect the meaning of words or phrases written previously. If you, or anyone, were capable of demonstrating this misconception to be true, I would happily concede my position.

words modify or clarify previous statements if there is text saying that that's what they're doing. i don't see any such text in this post, do you?

>>We were talking about a premise in which the answer is specifically included outright.

variables and a formula is a set of information that also specifically contains the answer, but it's still a question and some people still don't get it.

>>So you admit that you are not considering the explicit meanings of the words in the question, and the assembly thereof?

not in this line of argument moron. i already talked about those things in another one literally 4 lines above that quote. or have you degenerated to the point of forgetting things you read in the same post now?

>>Arriving at the answers before parsing the question is doing it in reverse.

like i said, this isn't about positive proof, but negative proof. you can prove what the question isn't asking by seeing if the answer makes sense.

>>that I'm explaining the meanings of the words in a way that does not include the words themselves, because that would be circular and explain nothing.

like i said, i'm not looking for a definition here. maybe you should just do it? or is it that you can't?

>>14706
>a single-predicate sentence can only have one topic

"Imagine we could measure units between objects."

This sentence explicitly includes a reference to the act of measuring.

This sentence explicitly includes a reference to a constant distance "units" to be used in that act.

This sentence explicitly includes a reference to the spatial relationship between objects.

The subject is no more and no less important than the predicate.

>if there is text saying that that's what they're doing

The English language requires no such caveat. It is helpful, but not necessary.

>variables and a formula is a set of information that also specifically contains the answer

They do not contain the answer, they contain the resources for deriving it. A recipe and set of ingredients do not specifically comprise a cake.

>not in this line of argument

The argument is about the meaning of the question. Formulating a line of argument concerning the meaning of the question which does not concern the meaning of the question is absurdity.

>seeing if the answer makes sense

And the criteria you are using to make this check are not explicitly expressed in the question.

>i'm not looking for a definition here

Agreed. You have been consistent in avoiding it.

We need fractions of a planck length to measure the relevance of this discussion.

>>14583
I still don't see where this implies that the square root of 2 DOES NOT EXIST.

>>14707
Wait, when did this discussion become about language? OP has probably been waiting for ages to know the answer to his question, and now you tards are talking about proverbs and predicates.
It's science, but not what this discussion needs.

>>14718
Oh, i stopped caring a looooong time ago. This is kinda amusing actualy. Like watching a dog chase its tail.

>>14726

Indeed. Why do you think I've stuck around so long? It's all about the entertainment value.