Thread: Over stropping

If something takes the place of what? Now, if it takes the place of something, then what it took the place of is no longer there. That means that it must be somewhere else. If it is somewhere else, then it has displaced something else. It is possible that the thing that it displaced has now displaced the thing that displaced the original thing and now is residing in that thing's original place. Is that the correct answer?

Originally Posted by ace

If something takes the place of what? Now, if it takes the place of something, then what it took the place of is no longer there. That means that it must be somewhere else. If it is somewhere else, then it has displaced something else. It is possible that the thing that it displaced has now displaced the thing that displaced the original thing and now is residing in that thing's original place. Is that the correct answer?

no, 42 is the correct answer.

But more to the point, something takes the place of something, but the taking of the place occurs at a frequency and scale that is only partially observable. Your are focusing on the something and you should be focusing on the taking of the place that something does. This is a matter that is both too complex for you to comprehend, and at the same time so simple that you miss it.

By the time I'm done smelling all my soaps, feeling all the edges of my razors, admiring all my brushes, doing business on the thrown, doing 50 strops, and then finally shaving. My house has been turned upside down by my 2 ferrets, cane corso, 7 month old daughter and a wife yelling at me to come help. For me, I need to keep things to an optimal number.


That means 1 smell of each soap!!

Originally Posted by unit

Once I deduced the fractal dimensions it verified that all observations are exactly duplicated at every integer value of scale even down to scales so minuscule as to be un-observable even to the aided eye.

So I ask, if something takes place that is both visible to the eye AND not visible to the eye (due to processes under way that are far to fine to visualize), is it possible for observation to affect the outcome?

Which is the basis of the scale of measurement? Cardinal, ordinal, interval or ratio?
If it is unobservable, no results can be actually recorded, only deduced. Kinda like wind -- can't see it, but can see its effects.

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

Which is the basis of the scale of measurement? Cardinal, ordinal, interval or ratio?
If it is unobservable, no results can be actually recorded, only deduced. Kinda like wind -- can't see it, but can see its effects.

NOTHING is observable...only the effects are observable.

You are not seeing the razor or the strop, you are seeing the light reflecting from them.

unit et al. (2012) Advanced Non-observation of Razor Stropping in Karstified Limestone Dwellings.

Originally Posted by unit

NOTHING is observable...only the effects are observable.

You are not seeing the razor or the strop, you are seeing the light reflecting from them.

unit et al. (2012) Advanced Non-observation of Razor Stropping in Karstified Limestone Dwellings.

Oooh, Karst topography! Cool!
As light qualifies as a "thing", and you concede that light is observable, then something is observable.
This is fun!

Debatable at best.

We use words like "wave" with arbitrary definitions to describe what we think we have observed. In fact they could just be synapse pulses triggering thoughts not unlike dreams about things that did not even actually occur.

Is a dream a thing if it is not reality?

Is this even happening or did you take the blue pill?

Hummmmmmm?

Originally Posted by unit

Debatable at best.

We use words like "wave" with arbitrary definitions to describe what we think we have observed. In fact they could just be synapse pulses triggering thoughts not unlike dreams about things that did not even actually occur.
Is a dream a thing if it is not reality?
Is this even happening or did you take the blue pill?

You raised an interesting question: is a "thought" a "thing"? Cog. psy. says "yes." Radical behaviourism says "no." Gestaltists would say no, it's process. I'll have to ponder this. Perhaps I should ask Robert Persig!

Originally Posted by unit

Hummmmmmm?

Is that a wish in one hand and something else in the other?