# Measuring the immeasurable.

1. Aug 18, 2009

### Hippasos

If we cannot directly measure or observe C it doesn't mean C doesn't exist.

If we can directly measure and observe A and B it always means A and B exists.

Lets say it so happens that B becomes measurable and observable only and only when A and C somehow interacts and we don't know that.

Let D = A + B

D is then defined, measured and therefore existent by A and B.

So we don't necessarily have to directly measure or observe C but it is still needed to get D.

Would we know that something is missing in definition of D?

Do You consider C to be significant?

2. Aug 18, 2009

### Chronos

Try logic operators and see what you get.

3. Aug 18, 2009

### Pinu7

Assuming the universe operates logically, if D follows from A and B(which are true), then D is true.

This is not scientific, but can you support that claim?

4. Aug 18, 2009

### Hippasos

No I can't, but I did my best.

5. Aug 18, 2009

### flatmaster

A, B, and D are ambiguous events. How do you add events?

6. Aug 29, 2009

### the_awesome

You make no sense. That's just contradictory.

Anywayz, you can't prove that C exists. It's like trying to prove the theory of evolution, you can't prove it because not only is it untestable - it is based on other theory's.

7. Aug 29, 2009

### JoeDawg

Only if D is my lunch.