I see you have cleverly noticed there is a 3D object in the meme image that is casting both projections.
This argument is one that is very, very difficult to have because it veers too closely to people’s first principles.
On one side, we have people who know they are forced by reason to believe in all truths that appear before them.
And on the other, we have people who have decided they will choose to believe in all truths that appear before them.
Like, it’s just a semantic difference. Nobody on the subjectivity side, nobody rational anyway, disagrees with the concept of gravity, we are just simply aware of our power as fallible human beings to destructively choose not to.
That said, there is something very dangerous about being in the second group of people, but thinking you’re among the first. And frequently, it becomes a problem when science brushes up against cultural fields it has more trouble explaining.
It is not always possible to see the 3D object. The ability to recognize that two groups can both be ‘correct’, like in a Newtonian way, even when they disagree with each other is a very useful skill.
Senal@programming.dev 7 hours ago
Sure, i could have specified i was talking about the gravitational pull rather than the concept of gravity as a whole.
I was, however, replying to a message that was specifically talking about gravitational pull, so i assumed it was understood i was referring to the same.
Nevertheless i stand by my assertion, I’ll be specific though so it’s clear.
The idea of some sort of magical control of gravity (and all of the concepts covered by that word) wouldn’t necessarily be a binary on/off.
in a theoretical system where gravity was an objectively provable truth that consisted of an on/off state, control would mean being able to turn that system on or off, either as a whole, but more specifically in this case, for a specified subject.
in a theoretical system where gravity was an subjective phenomena, control would mean being able adjust the effect of that phenomena to some degree.
The systems I’m talking about here are my interpretation of the the systems posited by the person to which i was replying.
Which , again, brings me back to:
For completeness, I should have probably said:
Agreed
As an aside:
What word was i using incorrectly and in what context? , genuine question.
i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 3 hours ago
You know, reading the thread I had the completely opposite understanding of the topic that was being discussed. Even now, I believe the other user was talking about the concept of gravity at large.
When having this type if discussion in academic situations, almost half of the time will be spent on defining terms to prevent misunderstanding.
Just using the word “gravity” is not specific enough. I’d recommend to talk about “gravitational pull” or “force” for the general concept, the one that applies the same everywhere. Then there could be the gravitational acceleration near the surface of Earth (or Gee’s for short), which is subjective to the location of an object.