>>530497707
My dear fellow, I must say, with the utmost gravitas and a profound sense of intellectual duty, that the proposition you have presented is not merely flawed—it is a veritable labyrinth of logical fallacies, wrapped in a shroud of pseudoscientific gibberish, and garnished with a sprinkling of linguistic absurdity. Allow me to dissect this egregious affront to reason with the precision of a surgeon and the eloquence of a Shakespearean bard.

First and foremost, the assertion that a missile "knows" anything is a categorical error of the highest order. Knowledge, in the philosophical sense, is a cognitive state possessed by sentient beings, not inanimate objects. A missile, being a mechanical device, operates on principles of physics and engineering, not epistemology. To impute knowledge to a missile is to commit the fallacy of reification, anthropomorphizing an object in a manner that is both unscientific and intellectually lazy.

Next, let us address the purported mechanism by which this missile determines its position. The text suggests that the missile calculates its location by "subtracting where it is, from where it isn't, or where it isn't, from where it is, whichever is greater." This is not merely incorrect; it is nonsensical. The concept of "where it isn't" is infinitely vast and undefined, rendering any attempt to subtract it from "where it is" mathematically and logically void. One cannot derive a meaningful difference from such an operation, as it lacks both coherence and utility. The very notion is akin to attempting to measure the silence between notes in a symphony—it is an exercise in futility.