JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

Forums

originally posted in: How to argue against this statement?
5/8/2013 2:59:16 AM
3
The theory of relativity is based ENTIRELY on perception.
English

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by Odahviing: 5/8/2013 3:05:42 AM
    Well from my understanding, it talks about perception, but only involving things like (I've got to look these up) Relativity of Simultaneity and time dilation. Like, it deals with perception, but on things like time and space, which I stated. Not on whether or not you perceive a tree as a giraffe.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • The Theory of Relativity states that the measurement of certain quantities or qualities are based on the perception of the viewer. You don't necessarily need a living human being to make it work, but it's just saying that based on the "viewpoint" of whatever unit you're trying to experiment with makes the difference. Time and space is only one facet of the theory, but it deals with much more than that. The theory of relativity can also apply to your situation. Saying that a tree is a giraffe is simply a quantitative observation, and you cannot disprove the person saying that as wrong. What they still see is a tree, but they're just using the incorrect word for it. You can prove to them that they are using the wrong word, based on what the mass majority of humans use. Another example. What I see as red, you might see as my color of blue, but you would still call it red because you've always been taught that that color is red. Are you still wrong? No, you're not. The perception of color is relative to the connections in your brain.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Okay, thanks for explaining the Theory of Relativity to me. However, whenever I'd tell him that he's using the incorrect word, he'd just say no I'm not, if I think it's called a giraffe then it's called a giraffe. And just wondering, how is calling it a giraffe a quantitative observation? Observing the tree would be an observation, but how would calling it a giraffe be one too? You're just naming what you've observed, so him naming it something different wouldn't change what he perceived, which was the tree, just what he calls it. Though you could say he perceives a giraffe as a tree, but can you perceive a name for an object?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

You are not allowed to view this content.
;
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon