What answer? What premise? What argument? What are you talking about?

my answer, your question, the premiss of a true common background...

The beach at Albufeira doesn't make sense?

You mean that it serves no function because it cannot be verified? Fine. What function does it fail to serve? I think I have asked you that question three times now.

And I thought that I answered that question already or that it was clear. It fails to serve the function of verification, which means that it serves no meaningful function as a proposition.

As phenomena they cannot in truth be asserted in a group !!!

WITH NO ESTABLISHED COHERENT BACKGROUND, THE ANSWER IS BOTH ODD AND EVEN !

Since you contradict yourself, what you say is not only false, but necessarily false.

We can, however, say something definite about your posts: we now know that they are not worth reading.

You are just plain dumb but what can I do such is life...

...depending on a Observer position one might get either one answer or the other, so obviously, who?s to say which is more valid...

If you were intelligent, you would have said that the answer would depend upon the observer, not that both are correct.

Any credible Physic will give you "my" answer...but you already now that don?t you ?...

As for my Intelligence is my own and I think I never spoke of it nor do I care much about bragging my I.Q.:rolleyes:

have fun mate...and get outside for fresh air !...:bigsmile:

And I thought that I answered that question already or that it was clear. It fails to serve the function of verification, which means that it serves no meaningful function as a proposition.

"Both" is wrong for every observer.

Grains, people, cars, or even Stars are asserted in groups with a Space/Time frame as background...or do they exist independently of Space and Time ?
What the hell are you not understanding here ??? Jeeeeesus !!! :brickwall:

I would just like to add that these groups are always a conceptual synthesis, and that concept is always quantized. We can 23.5, but this is a singular quantity, represented with multiple digits. Integers we can conceive of one by one by one, or also as a singular quantity. We can zoom in or out. Integers are transcendental, as they are modifications of one. What do you think, my friend? Am I insane or do all numbers boil down to one?

Albert Einstein, on the other hand, stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."[6]

All the numbers are made of One?s and groups always come to the intuition of this origin...

BOTH is the sum for someone that believes that there are more observers out there...Truth requires a Universal answer as far as I can remember...
BOTH is better then NONE...thus if I peak one, that implies that the other is also true somewhere...but of course, some linear thinking will get in trouble immediately...

Truth requires a correct answer, not merely a universal one. "Both" is always necessarily wrong. If the correct answer depends upon the observer, then that is what one should say. Saying "both" is just plain wrong.

Truth requires a correct answer, not merely a universal one. "Both" is always necessarily wrong. If the correct answer depends upon the observer, then that is what one should say. Saying "both" is just plain wrong.

It is interesting. Suppose the question is, is the glass half-full or is it half-empty. Then "both" is an appropriate answer, although it is view -dependent. But, of course, "half-full" and "half-empty" are not contradictories or even contraries.

Pyrrho;133565 wrote:

Truth requires a correct answer, not merely a universal one. "Both" is always necessarily wrong. If the correct answer depends upon the observer, then that is what one should say. Saying "both" is just plain wrong.

Schr?dinger's cat paradox tell us otherwise in an Independent reality set which I think was the question at hand here...

Schr?dinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum. The thought experiment serves to illustrate the bizarreness of quantum mechanics and the mathematics necessary to describe quantum states. Intended as a critique of just the Copenhagen interpretation (the prevailing orthodoxy in 1935), the Schr?dinger cat thought experiment remains a topical touchstone for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. How each interpretation deals with Schr?dinger's cat is often used as a way of illustrating and comparing each interpretation's particular features, strengths, and weaknesses.