My terms lack precision
Can my words fully convey the meanings of reality?
Does the term "table" cover the meaning of table?
Y/N, N/Y
so, the word "table"
the image of a table
the data of the scanned photo containing a table
3D table model or SVG of table
Suppose the table is a desk. What if it's a counter?
Data extracted from a video showcasing a table over two hours
Data used to train AI systems to identify certain table variations
The AI-created training dataset for table recognition
A mental representation of the table in our brain
Handwritten text referencing a table
HTML markup, including the word "table."
ASCII art of table
___________
/ \
/_____________\
| | | |
|_____|___|___|
| | | |
|_____|___|___|
I know... ridiculous drawing. This text is like a poem from the early 90ths. Sorry.
Some philosopher says
our current civilization seems post-digital.
I feel that this term is non-precise, and we aren't post-digital
Or does post-digital mean
most people are idiots who spend the whole day tapping and licking their smartphones?
If yes, we might live in the post-digital age,
Although the age of Homo Idioticus sounds better.
What are the distinctions between chairs and tables?
I am not sure, but it sounds uncomplicated
This is something all kids understand
Speculative narratives and dancing tables?
Okay, what about the words "pain" and "happiness"?
These are more complicated
The same problem applies to numbers
Yet, we ease up. Can't count? We make up numbers...
Can You add up the atoms in your coffee?
Yes, of course, Or oh wait...?
You can determine the molar mass of caffeine
C8H10N4O2
Carbon (C): ~12.01 g/mol
Hydrogen (H): ~1.008 g/mol
Nitrogen (N): ~14.01 g/mol
Oxygen (O): ~16.00 g/mol
Now plug in the values
Molar mass=(8×12.01)+(10×1.008)+
(4×14.01)+(2×16.00)
= 96.08 + 10.08 + 56.04 + 32.00 = 194.20 𝑔 /𝑚𝑜𝑙
Now, Assuming the density of coffee is about 1 g/ml,
1 dl of coffee would be equivalent to 100 g
Divide the mass of caffeine by its molar mass to find the number of moles
Now, you can apply Avogadro's Number:
Multiply the number of moles by Avogadro's number to find
the total number of caffeine molecules (and, therefore, atoms).
Total number of atoms=Number of moles×Avogadro ′ s number...
Anyway, I got this value: my 1dl coffee contains 3.10×10 23 atoms.
Is this okay? What if there are three more atoms?
How many electrons are there in my coffee?
Okay,
Hydrogen: 10 atoms×1 electron/atom=10 electrons
Oxygen 2 atoms×8 electrons/atom=16 electrons
Nitrogen 4 atoms×7 electrons/atom=28 electrons
So, the total number of electrons in one molecule of caffeine is
48 + 10 + 28 + 16 = 102 48+10+28+16=102 electrons
And what if there was soya milk in it?
Will it never be precise?
But that is accepted, and we invented quantum physics
If my socks in the drawer were electron-sized
and I was not able to count my socks in it
I would say I found out the Socks Physics
I have a socks function that estimates where my running socks are at this moment.
But I can count them as I can see them
Can I see them? No, my brain sees them. My eyes are just sensors...
But socks are from atoms and other particles.
They are just my brain's created vision...
So, can I count atoms in my socks?
If I was a tiny particle cloud...I might be able to...
Joke, joke, joke.
Is my coffee on the table?
What is the table? Is that a shape of particles?
Is that table just a vision produced by my brain?
And all mentioned variations: picture of table, data of the picture of the table...
Just a part of the game of what my brain creates from particles around me?
What if I could see all the particles in this second?
All atoms and subatomic particles?
So, If I see the table that is a cloud of particles
I am in the same cloud
Both of us and the cloud is in the universe
Everything is the same
The biochemical reactions that we call life
are only a game of particles...
You can say no, but it does not matter
It is...
Okay
Our languages...ohh
One of the more significant shadow parts of languages is that
It makes possible politics and rhetoric? (Joke)
Would Kant be a pop star today? (I am kidding)
If Schopenhauer lived now, would he be an influencer on social media? (Joke)
I have imagined Bertrand Russell as a ballet dancer. (Seriously)
Sadly, life's short. I won't live to see it invented
something better than current numbers and languages
Unified physics, self-adjusting precision
End of number-based math
End of math
End of speaking
To exist without a body and beyond what's mentioned above
And yes,
the complexity is just for us
the universe does not know and care about our terms
Complexity signifies the boundaries of our current understanding
and nothing more
This text is not a chaos
It is just chaotic
We are tiny and invisible,
and there is no God,
The anthropic principle is religion for scientists?
Who wants to believe in God
The sky is usually blue
and if we disappear
The Universe remains indifferent
(Note, Universe cannot be indifferent,
and it does not know that its name is Universe)
So, yes, nothing cares about us or our existence
and the kind of state of particles we call life.
Amen.
most people are idiots who spend the whole day tapping and licking their smartphones?
If yes, we might live in the post-digital age,
Although the age of Homo Idioticus sounds better.
What are the distinctions between chairs and tables?
I am not sure, but it sounds uncomplicated
This is something all kids understand
Speculative narratives and dancing tables?
Okay, what about the words "pain" and "happiness"?
These are more complicated
The same problem applies to numbers
Yet, we ease up. Can't count? We make up numbers...
Can You add up the atoms in your coffee?
Yes, of course, Or oh wait...?
You can determine the molar mass of caffeine
C8H10N4O2
Carbon (C): ~12.01 g/mol
Hydrogen (H): ~1.008 g/mol
Nitrogen (N): ~14.01 g/mol
Oxygen (O): ~16.00 g/mol
Now plug in the values
Molar mass=(8×12.01)+(10×1.008)+
(4×14.01)+(2×16.00)
= 96.08 + 10.08 + 56.04 + 32.00 = 194.20 𝑔 /𝑚𝑜𝑙
Now, Assuming the density of coffee is about 1 g/ml,
1 dl of coffee would be equivalent to 100 g
Divide the mass of caffeine by its molar mass to find the number of moles
Now, you can apply Avogadro's Number:
Multiply the number of moles by Avogadro's number to find
the total number of caffeine molecules (and, therefore, atoms).
Total number of atoms=Number of moles×Avogadro ′ s number...
Anyway, I got this value: my 1dl coffee contains 3.10×10 23 atoms.
Is this okay? What if there are three more atoms?
How many electrons are there in my coffee?
Okay,
***** * o o * * v * * ___ * * * *****Carbon...8 atoms×6 electrons/atom=48 electrons
Hydrogen: 10 atoms×1 electron/atom=10 electrons
Oxygen 2 atoms×8 electrons/atom=16 electrons
Nitrogen 4 atoms×7 electrons/atom=28 electrons
So, the total number of electrons in one molecule of caffeine is
48 + 10 + 28 + 16 = 102 48+10+28+16=102 electrons
And what if there was soya milk in it?
Will it never be precise?
But that is accepted, and we invented quantum physics
If my socks in the drawer were electron-sized
and I was not able to count my socks in it
I would say I found out the Socks Physics
I have a socks function that estimates where my running socks are at this moment.
But I can count them as I can see them
Can I see them? No, my brain sees them. My eyes are just sensors...
But socks are from atoms and other particles.
They are just my brain's created vision...
So, can I count atoms in my socks?
If I was a tiny particle cloud...I might be able to...
Joke, joke, joke.
Is my coffee on the table?
What is the table? Is that a shape of particles?
Is that table just a vision produced by my brain?
And all mentioned variations: picture of table, data of the picture of the table...
Just a part of the game of what my brain creates from particles around me?
What if I could see all the particles in this second?
All atoms and subatomic particles?
So, If I see the table that is a cloud of particles
I am in the same cloud
Both of us and the cloud is in the universe
Everything is the same
The biochemical reactions that we call life
are only a game of particles...
You can say no, but it does not matter
It is...
Okay
Our languages...ohh
One of the more significant shadow parts of languages is that
It makes possible politics and rhetoric? (Joke)
Would Kant be a pop star today? (I am kidding)
If Schopenhauer lived now, would he be an influencer on social media? (Joke)
I have imagined Bertrand Russell as a ballet dancer. (Seriously)
Sadly, life's short. I won't live to see it invented
something better than current numbers and languages
Unified physics, self-adjusting precision
End of number-based math
End of math
End of speaking
To exist without a body and beyond what's mentioned above
And yes,
the complexity is just for us
the universe does not know and care about our terms
Complexity signifies the boundaries of our current understanding
and nothing more
This text is not a chaos
It is just chaotic
We are tiny and invisible,
and there is no God,
The anthropic principle is religion for scientists?
Who wants to believe in God
The sky is usually blue
and if we disappear
The Universe remains indifferent
(Note, Universe cannot be indifferent,
and it does not know that its name is Universe)
So, yes, nothing cares about us or our existence
and the kind of state of particles we call life.
Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment