but when it doesn’t work, you notice that it doesn’t. so it must be doing something and not nothing. if it was doing nothing, you wouldn’t even realize it had the ability to start and stop working.
@asmaa
hmmm… but it may so that as a rule it does nothing. and when you use it, you expect it to do something, because you’re used to things doing things and not doing nothing. so you say it’s “not working”. well, it can’t not work, because it does primarily nothing. so it is one’s expectations that create the perception that the thing must do something, when, in fact, it does nothing.
So when you use it, that mean this “it” is something that tangibly exists. Just by the mere fact that it exists, it is doing something; it’s occupying space. And it can never stop doing something, because it will always be matter that can be located in time and space. Therefore your original question is faulty, considering the fact that it does not have the inherent ability to do nothing. It is always doing something.
actually, the original question is not faulty. i said that it does ‘primarily nothing’. that is to say that its primary function is nothing. ‘occupying space’ does not qualify as a primary function, or the ‘intended’ function.
from that point on, if you were to use the something without proper instructions, you may assume that it does something. however, it does nothing (as a primary function). but since you are looking for some primary function, you say that it is “not working”. and the rest of my explanation we’ve already been through.
it seems that our definitions of ‘nothing’ aren’t exactly in line with each other. in this case we’ll just have to agree that you are wrong.
the more you look for something, the more nothing you may find. because the something you were looking for, was all just in your mind.
Yes, but I prefer to be referred to as “she” not “it.”
but when it doesn’t work, you notice that it doesn’t. so it must be doing something and not nothing. if it was doing nothing, you wouldn’t even realize it had the ability to start and stop working.
@asmaa
hmmm… but it may so that as a rule it does nothing. and when you use it, you expect it to do something, because you’re used to things doing things and not doing nothing. so you say it’s “not working”. well, it can’t not work, because it does primarily nothing. so it is one’s expectations that create the perception that the thing must do something, when, in fact, it does nothing.
i rest my case.
So when you use it, that mean this “it” is something that tangibly exists. Just by the mere fact that it exists, it is doing something; it’s occupying space. And it can never stop doing something, because it will always be matter that can be located in time and space. Therefore your original question is faulty, considering the fact that it does not have the inherent ability to do nothing. It is always doing something.
I rest MY case.
actually, the original question is not faulty. i said that it does ‘primarily nothing’. that is to say that its primary function is nothing. ‘occupying space’ does not qualify as a primary function, or the ‘intended’ function.
from that point on, if you were to use the something without proper instructions, you may assume that it does something. however, it does nothing (as a primary function). but since you are looking for some primary function, you say that it is “not working”. and the rest of my explanation we’ve already been through.
it seems that our definitions of ‘nothing’ aren’t exactly in line with each other. in this case we’ll just have to agree that you are wrong.
the more you look for something, the more nothing you may find. because the something you were looking for, was all just in your mind.
i rest my feet.
hmph!
i’m glad we’ve come to an agreement on the matter. =)
But shouldn’t it work?
what’s with you people? can’t we just let some things do nothing?
And apparently, lately, neither do you.
Now, read/sing this to the time of “It’s the Time To Disco”… it’s the time to UPDATE!
so it always works, then.
thank you basit, that is precisely so.
thank you basit, that is precisely so.