I REALLY didn't want to have to go here. Are you gonna make me start posting equations and relating to Uncertainty principles and such?

>
>i disagree, to a point with
>this. sometimes truth can define
>state (for example, you yourself
>used in the case where
>you said you have "5
>apples". in the case of
>the "wet" example there are
>two states. wet and dry.

If this is true, please explain. When is a human "absolutely wet" or "absolutely dry"? You said "as i was thinking, even if you have the slightest degree of wetness you still aren't dry". Isn't the reciprocal true? If you have the slightest degree of dryness, you still aren't wet. Anything dealing with polar opposites will lead us to the argument of relativity (do not pass go, do not collect $200). Which leads us to an unarguable point that absolutes don't exist in the current universe.

>if you have 4 3/4
>apples to me (and by
>the definition of five) you
>dont' have five. you may
>say 4 3/4 is enough,
>but technically you dont.
>

Ok, here is what I meant about language being a barrier to communicate thoughts. Suppose I have what I consider to be 5 apples. In a perfect language, I can have the mental picture of 5 apples I send it to you (in order for this to occur, I describe the 5 apples and the state that they're in i.e. color, weight, structure, etc...). This mental picture I send is the picture of 5 apples. By the time I send my picture, the 5 "apples" that I sent aren't the same at all. In fact, they've lost weight (see radiation)!! So, what I at one time considered to be 5 apples is now less than the mental picture. Hence, I have less than 5 apples. It's not as little as 4 3/4 apples, but it isn't as much as the mental picture of 5 apples I sent.

And, I don't even want to get into a discussion on the wave/particle duality of matter. That just takes it to a whole different level.

>this discussion is taking an interesting
>turn....

Please believe it!


Peace,

eyezed

Am I gonna look like a nerd and lose all my street credentials??