3 ms·

> Earthquakes are caused by the ultimate God, and mediated by various other dieties or angels, > you can roughly say that a deity or angel is equivalent (in de

by redial 10y ago

> Earthquakes are caused by the ultimate God, and mediated by various other dieties or angels, > you can roughly say that a deity or angel is equivalent (in definition) to a quasiparticle. As I said, claiming understanding while showing only confusion. I really, really, really hope your so-called explanation makes sense inside your head, otherwise I'll be forced to think you are being dishonest, taking terms that have been used in one way for probably a millennia, if not more, and twisting them to cause controversy where there is none. Either way, there is nothing more I could add without being mean, so I'm gonna stop answering.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
You're simply wrong if you think the modern notion of those terms is the same as even their recent historic meaning, much less their old meanings. Much of the meanong you're probably familiar with is their co-opting to fiction rather than honest worldview. It would be like if I insisted scientists don't mean anything because scifi abuses the same language terms! I would argue that my definition is perfectly in line with the historic view of those terms and how they're used by people who model their worldview with them. Similarly, what part of my definition do you not feel is fair -- they're not any more real than protons, another ficticious entity, but they're not any less useful as a conceptual entity. Ill note you only claimed I was confused, but didn't actually explain how and have demonstrated zero knowledge of the idea Im trying to convey. Have you considered you're simply confused, not me? Again, you seem genuinely unwilling to consider that maybe people have a more nuanced and sophisticated view than your pop-culture based caricature, and insisting that we can only mean that nonsense by the words, despite the several millennia of them being used the way Im using them.

by redial 10y ago

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago

You're simply wrong if you think the modern notion of those terms is the same as even their recent historic meaning, much less their old meanings. Much of the meanong you're probably familiar with is their co-opting to fiction rather than honest worldview. It would be like if I insisted scientists don't mean anything because scifi abuses the same language terms! I would argue that my definition is perfectly in line with the historic view of those terms and how they're used by people who model their worldview with them. Similarly, what part of my definition do you not feel is fair -- they're not any more real than protons, another ficticious entity, but they're not any less useful as a conceptual entity. Ill note you only claimed I was confused, but didn't actually explain how and have demonstrated zero knowledge of the idea Im trying to convey. Have you considered you're simply confused, not me? Again, you seem genuinely unwilling to consider that maybe people have a more nuanced and sophisticated view than your pop-culture based caricature, and insisting that we can only mean that nonsense by the words, despite the several millennia of them being used the way Im using them.