[Havonii]

As we know, the Flat Earth Society claims that a Round Earth is not plausible, and never will be, due to the amount of proof that has to be attained.   

Then, on the flip side, the majority who believe in a Round (sphere) Earth claim that Flat Earth will never be proven or correct due to the extraordinary amount of evidence needed.

Both sides argue, fight, and manipulate conversations and contradictory evidence for their favor.

Each side says the other is conspiracy/ misconception.

All this for what?  Knowledge? Power? Attention?

Quantum Physics has already studied sub- atomic particles, electrons and and the wavelike and infinite attributes of the Universe.
It all only exists because of your presence, without you observing and merely living in this vast universe, it does not exist in your reality.

The universe is infinite. The Earth is infinite. You, me, and our cellular DNA is all infinite.  All possibility.   

It is an infinite plain. It is an infinite sphere.

When you do not observe the universe, It does not have to adhere to your comprehension. The universe does not have to obey the laws it is given.

The Earth is not flat,it is not round, it is all, and just that.

[supaluminus]

We develop models of reality based on their predictive power and reliability. I understand where you're coming from with respect to quantum theory, but if you're saying that both sides are simultaneously right and wrong simply because we have a tenuous grasp of the quantum notion of "perspective," insofar that it means an infinite number of possibilities can coincide with each other simultaneously, I'm going to disagree with you.

With the sole exception of quantum theory, everything else we observe about the natural world tells us that we live in an objective, grounded reality.

Consider the following example:

If someone I've never met steps on a plane and flies across the globe to land in my state, visit my workplace, and stop by my desk while I'm on a bathroom break, I have no way of knowing that they even exist, never mind that they came to visit me. Sure, I can conceive of something like this happening, but that's different from knowing with any reasonable degree of accuracy WHEN and HOW this situation might take place, if ever.

If the imaginary visitor stops by my desk and leaves a Post-It note that reads, "The author of this note does not exist," leaving and going home before I get back from the bathroom, I'm going to have a hard time reconciling the content of that message with the obvious fact that, clearly, someone left a note.

It's an interesting thought, quantum theory and the way you're interpreting it, but you're talking about it as though it's as concrete and certain as the pastrami sandwich I had for lunch this afternoon. The fact is that it's still a blossoming field, relatively speaking (haha puns) and we don't actually understand as much about it as we do other disciplines.

[Havonii]

We develop models of reality based on their predictive power and reliability. I understand where you're coming from with respect to quantum theory, but if you're saying that both sides are simultaneously right and wrong simply because we have a tenuous grasp of the quantum notion of "perspective," insofar that it means an infinite number of possibilities can coincide with each other simultaneously, I'm going to disagree with you.

With the sole exception of quantum theory, everything else we observe about the natural world tells us that we live in an objective, grounded reality.

Consider the following example:

If someone I've never met steps on a plane and flies across the globe to land in my state, visit my workplace, and stop by my desk while I'm on a bathroom break, I have no way of knowing that they even exist, never mind that they came to visit me. Sure, I can conceive of something like this happening, but that's different from knowing with any reasonable degree of accuracy WHEN and HOW this situation might take place, if ever.

If the imaginary visitor stops by my desk and leaves a Post-It note that reads, "The author of this note does not exist," leaving and going home before I get back from the bathroom, I'm going to have a hard time reconciling the content of that message with the obvious fact that, clearly, someone left a note.

It's an interesting thought, quantum theory and the way you're interpreting it, but you're talking about it as though it's as concrete and certain as the pastrami sandwich I had for lunch this afternoon. The fact is that it's still a blossoming field, relatively speaking (haha puns) and we don't actually understand as much about it as we do other disciplines.

Yes, our reality is concrete, this is a sphere, we can predict and measure what is there.

The reason it is concrete is the same reason why an electron instantly appears in the place immediately observed.
However, when not observed, it is probable, and even then, its behaviors are out of our understanding.
What we know, is that the further into the atomic level you go, the more wavelike something is, the more unpredictable, the more infinite it is.

However size is only relative, or not relative, depending on what your reality is.
The Universe is expanding, stretching space-time infinitely, spreading every galaxy, star, planet, atom, molecule, and particle, further and further apart.

You can literally be the size of an electron, or the size of a galaxy, but relative to you, you are the size of yourself, even though you could be stretched across what would be light years relative to someone else.

With this, it is forever, we are the size of anything, infinitely.
We are all possibility, relatively.

But only to us are we this way, and only to us is the Earth only one shape.

But change your relativity, and it becomes probable, and incomprehensible.





 

[DannyDevitoTheSecond]

I don't quite understand what all you just said, but I would like to have an intellectual conversation with you. I'm not sure where you stand on this belief but, I personally believe that the Earth is round. Just wanted to have an actual conversation.

[Havonii]

I don't quite understand what all you just said, but I would like to have an intellectual conversation with you. I'm not sure where you stand on this belief but, I personally believe that the Earth is round. Just wanted to have an actual conversation.

I also know the Earth to be round, and sorry if it is confusing, but the functionalities of the universe really is an odd thing.

[supaluminus]

I don't quite understand what all you just said, but I would like to have an intellectual conversation with you. I'm not sure where you stand on this belief but, I personally believe that the Earth is round. Just wanted to have an actual conversation.

I also know the Earth to be round, and sorry if it is confusing, but the functionalities of the universe really is an odd thing.

It surely and truly is an odd thing. All I’m saying, with respect to relativity, perspective, and the act of observation, is that it isn’t rational to say that two people can observe the same thing, draw two competing conclusions, and each be simultaneously right and wrong.

If we remove Schrödinger's cat from the box, it’s either alive or dead. With the earth, there is no box obscuring it to begin with - a flat earther and a globe tard can both observe the earth simultaneously.

With respect to a binary like “flat/round” or “alive/dead,” in the cat’s case, one person may observe that the cat is alive, and one person may observe that the cat is dead. They can’t both be correct once the cat is out of the box. It is the same with the earth.

We share an objective reality in spite of our unique, subjective, first person experience. There’s a lot about the universe that we don’t yet understand, and certainly quantum theory throws a “Schrödinger’s wrench” into general relativity, if you follow my meaning, but I’m not yet comfortable enough with either model to make proclamations like yours with respect to how we define objective reality. We don’t yet know enough about either model to reconcile the two, but in the meantime, our limited perspective as hominids is most compatible and consistent with general relativity. There are always exceptions, but that doesn’t mean you should abandon objectivity and throw the objective baby out with the Einsteinian bathwater.

[Havonii]

I don't quite understand what all you just said, but I would like to have an intellectual conversation with you. I'm not sure where you stand on this belief but, I personally believe that the Earth is round. Just wanted to have an actual conversation.

I also know the Earth to be round, and sorry if it is confusing, but the functionalities of the universe really is an odd thing.

It surely and truly is an odd thing. All I’m saying, with respect to relativity, perspective, and the act of observation, is that it isn’t rational to say that two people can observe the same thing, draw two competing conclusions, and each be simultaneously right and wrong.

If we remove Schrodinger's cat from the box, it’s either alive or dead. With the earth, there is no box obscuring it to begin with - a flat earther and a globe tard can both observe the earth simultaneously.

Just like the earth, at least when we’re limiting our options to a binary like “flat/round” or “alive/dead,” in the cat’s case, one person may observe that the cat is alive, and one person may observe that the cat is dead. They can’t both be correct once the cat is out of the box. It is the same with the earth.

We share an objective reality in spite of our unique, subjective, first person experience. There’s a lot about the universe that we don’t yet understand, and certainly quantum theory throws a “Shrodinger’s wrench” into general relativity, if you follow my meaning, but I’m not yet comfortable enough with either model to make proclamations like yours with respect to how we define objective reality. We don’t yet know enough about either model to reconcile the two, but in the meantime, our limited perspective as hominids is most compatible and consistent with general relativity. There are always exceptions, but that doesn’t mean you should abandon objectivity and throw the objective baby out with the Einsteinian bathwater.

Take it this way,...   

Light is both a wave and a particle.

Two people are experimenting the behaviors of light, one uses a vacuum and a rotatable panel, the other uses a solid medium.

One can conclude that light is a particle, and the other a wave - they both are right, yet both are wrong.

And until another comes along and discovers the probability wave and dual properties of light, it will stay this way.

The cat may be dying.

[supaluminus]

Take it this way,...   

Light is both a wave and a particle.

Two people are experimenting the behaviors of light, one uses a vacuum and a rotatable panel, the other uses a solid medium.

One can conclude that light is a particle, and the other a wave - they both are right, yet both are wrong.

And until another comes along and discovers the probability wave and dual properties of light, it will stay this way.

The cat may be dying.

Completely understand and comprehend the principle you're describing. It doesn't work out when the two researchers are conducting the same experiment.

In your analogy, flat earthers and globe tards are looking at two different boxes (two different experiments, in your case). They each conclude differently about the cat inside the box. The problem with that analogy is that the earth is that it is NOT obscured from either party and we are NOT conducting separate experiments and observations. Rather, the earth is one cat, there is no box, and both researchers are standing in the same "room," conducting the same experiments together.

Even if these two are separated by miles, they're still standing in the same metaphorical "room" and looking at the same thing (the earth). Do you understand my objection more clearly? Unless you think I'm misunderstanding you, I think it's the other way around. Just trying to come to an agreement or at least see how we each came to our conclusions.

[Havonii]

Take it this way,...   

Light is both a wave and a particle.

Two people are experimenting the behaviors of light, one uses a vacuum and a rotatable panel, the other uses a solid medium.

One can conclude that light is a particle, and the other a wave - they both are right, yet both are wrong.

And until another comes along and discovers the probability wave and dual properties of light, it will stay this way.

The cat may be dying.

Completely understand and comprehend the principle you're describing. It doesn't work out when the two researchers are conducting the same experiment.

In your analogy, flat earthers and globe tards are looking at two different boxes (two different experiments, in your case). They each conclude differently about the cat inside the box. The problem with that analogy is that the earth is that it is NOT obscured from either party and we are NOT conducting separate experiments and observations. Rather, the earth is one cat, there is no box, and both researchers are standing in the same "room," conducting the same experiments together.

Even if these two are separated by miles, they're still standing in the same metaphorical "room" and looking at the same thing (the earth). Do you understand my objection more clearly? Unless you think I'm misunderstanding you, I think it's the other way around. Just trying to come to an agreement or at least see how we each came to our conclusions.

I understand where you are coming from. No, there is no box, and the experiment is the same.

I guess what it boils down to is the capability to accept, understand and the accumulative knowledge/ experience of the two whom conduct the experiment.
They may have different views or perspectives within the same experiment, due to the unpredictable, and somewhat spontaneous nature of the human mind when it is forced to take part in decision making, in the face of past experiences.
If one does not agree or accept the others' analysis, they must retry and debate until a conclusion is made.

The dual nature of all particles makes the conclusion that, while appearing to be stable and concrete, the Earth (or anything) is not any particular shape. Whatever the object, it inhibits wave like properties in a probable position. The Earth is definitively round, but probabilitivley, on an atomic level, it is not. 

If the cat was dead, but then revived, it was always alive.
But if the cat dies, forever, it was not never alive, but once was living.

 

[supaluminus]

I understand where you are coming from. No, there is no box, and the experiment is the same.

I guess what it boils down to is the capability to accept, understand and the accumulative knowledge/ experience of the two whom conduct the experiment.
They may have different views or perspectives within the same experiment, due to the unpredictable, and somewhat spontaneous nature of the human mind when it is forced to take part in decision making, in the face of past experiences.
If one does not agree or accept the others' analysis, they must retry and debate until a conclusion is made.

The dual nature of all particles makes the conclusion that, while appearing to be stable and concrete, the Earth (or anything) is not any particular shape. Whatever the object, it inhibits wave like properties in a probable position. The Earth is definitively round, but probabilitivley, on an atomic level, it is not. 

If the cat was dead, but then revived, it was always alive.
But if the cat dies, forever, it was not never alive, but once was living.

Let me just cut through the fat and say that all of those niggling problems that come up as a result of two people refusing to agree with one another ceases to be a problem if we assume both parties are adhering to intellectually honest best practices. What do you think?

[Havonii]

Let me just cut through the fat and say that all of those niggling problems that come up as a result of two people refusing to agree with one another ceases to be a problem if we assume both parties are adhering to intellectually honest best practices. What do you think?

Yes, if both parties are adhering to the same problem, without the interference of personality, then the debate is not futile, but conclusive.

However until this stability can be assured, the Flat vs Round debate is a futile show of personalities, with both sides presenting theories that are incompatible with the other.


I suppose that rather than debate and try to sway each other to one side, propositions and scientific theory could be made to enhance and grow each persons perspective and knowledge of the topic.

That way, there is no 'burden of proof' because everyone is allowed to believe what they want.

[supaluminus]

Yes, if both parties are adhering to the same problem, without the interference of personality, then the debate is not futile, but conclusive.

However until this stability can be assured, the Flat vs Round debate is a futile show of personalities, with both sides presenting theories that are incompatible with the other.


I suppose that rather than debate and try to sway each other to one side, propositions and scientific theory could be made to enhance and grow each persons perspective and knowledge of the topic.

That way, there is no 'burden of proof' because everyone is allowed to believe what they want.

I am of the opinion that all any one person can do to rectify this problem is serve as a good example and be consistent, but propositions and scientific theory depend on all parties having the same comprehension of both science and reason. I can no more instill in someone else the desire to be scientifically literate than I can instill in them the desire to be intellectually honest. All I can do is try to serve as a good example.