Comment by mathisfun123
2 hours ago
Brother you're wrong and there's ample scholarship you can consult to correct your misunderstanding. The Wikipedia with sufficient citations is right there. Feel free to educate yourself.
2 hours ago
Brother you're wrong and there's ample scholarship you can consult to correct your misunderstanding. The Wikipedia with sufficient citations is right there. Feel free to educate yourself.
I do not appreciate your condescension.
Either state your argument coherently so as to address my completely valid objection, or move on if you're not interested in having a discussion.
Arguing by sending bare links to wiki articles isn't productive and doesn't make you look particularly good.
Not defending GP, but your claim that actual truth "obviously exists" is equally condescending and empty of backing evidence.
Would you say the continuum hypothesis (or its negation) is "actual truth"? Or does the "actual truth" become something closer to "actually, there are models of ZFC where CH holds as well as models where it doesn't hold, or maybe ZFC is already inconsistent; we don't really know, nor can we."?
Similarly, on the subject of astronomical reference frames, I'd argue the "actual truth" is closer to this:
> Any reference frame which locally obeys Newton's law of inertia is equally valid. Some are more useful than others depending on the problem you are studying. The notion of an "absolute center" is purely semantic, and a meaningless human construct until one places bounds on the system under study, wherein the center of mass becomes the most reasonable choice at sub-cosmological scales.