|
Post by Mike on Feb 24, 2014 2:49:42 GMT
This thread contains multiple links and resources which explicate the rational definition of the key term of physics, "object". "Physics cannot be conducted without a proper definition of the word ‘object’. Here I show that current misconceptions about this word, as well as about the scientific method, are the root of invalid hypotheses in Physics." - From Bill Gaede's paper, What is an object?Bill goes on in this paper to conclude that the only rational (i.e. non-contradictory) definition of object is: that which has shape. Another rational scientist, Fatfist Fattie, also analyzes the issue and comes to the same conclusion at his hubpage, Physics - What is SHAPE and Why Does it Define an Object?"Object: that which has shape.
This definition of ‘object’ doesn’t take into consideration what the shape of an object is. This is irrelevant to the issue before us: Does an alleged object have shape…Yes or No? Either an alleged object has shape or it doesn’t – there is no other option.
Shape is the only intrinsic property that all objects have, whether they are real, abstract, hypothesized, non-existent or invisible to us."
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 24, 2014 2:51:35 GMT
Object, that which has concept?
Many opponents of this definition often criticize it by claiming that we have stated that an object is: that which has concept.
This empty criticism has been answered in detail by Bill Gaede:
I. Introduction
Fiesta is an individual who has lodged objections against the ‘shape’ notion of ‘object’. This file is created to document his objections and to provide counter-arguments to his objections. This file will be updated as the need arises.
II. “object is that which has concept”
Let’s synthesize fiesta’s argument to see where he’s coming from. If ‘object’ is ‘that which has shape’ and ‘shape’ is a concept, it follows that an object is that which has a concept, which makes the definition of ‘object’ contingent upon concepts. Since a concept, in turn, is defined as ‘a word that invokes two objects or locations’, these two definitions taken together become circular.
III. Context of fiesta's objections
fiesta is an extreme devil’s advocate who is entirely unconcerned about defining words rigorously, but bent instead on destroying rational arguments and definitions simply because they threaten his religion. fiesta wants to preserve Mathematical Physics (GR, QM, ST) at all costs. It is this fervor for religion that leads him to attack rationality. He wants to show that it is impossible to define words rigorously in Science. If he achieves this end, he is free to fall back on Mathematics’ imperfect definitions and continue as if nothing. In other words, his strategy will not be to defend Mathematical 'physics', but to show that any attack against Math 'phyz' from a semantic perspective bogs down in quicksand and this gives him and the mathematicians a green light to continue with irrationality.
In fiesta's view, words are defined using other words which in turn rely on other words and so on ad infinitum. If we can't define every word in the dictionary without relying upon another one, we ultimately have a circular definition no matter what. If, like in the instant case, the word object is defined by invoking a concept and the notion of concept itself is predicated on there being two objects, we have patently obvious circularity.
IV. Objections to fiesta’s arguments
a. By destroying the possibility that words can be defined rigorously, the extreme devil’s advocate is tacitly conceding that Mathematical ‘physics’ does NOT have rational definitions. This summarily debunks the long held, unjustified claim that Mathematics is founded upon rigorous definitions.
b. A scientist does NOT define every word in the dictionary.
c. A scientist does NOT define every word he is going to use in his presentation. He defines only those words that make or break his theory. There has to be a need to define a term. We don't define words to please the devil's advocate.
d. In the definition, ‘object: that which has shape’, there are four words: that, which, has, and shape. Why does the devil’s advocate ask you to define the word ‘shape’ and not any of the others? Is it perchance any easier to define the word ‘that’ or ‘has’ than the word ‘shape’? Can he tell us what these words mean before we move on to ‘shape’? Why pick on shape? Would a 10-year-old understand what the word ‘shape’ alludes to? Would the same kid understand what ‘that’ means?
e. A devil’s advocate (or any skeptic for that matter) is an individual who already has an alternative theory or definition whether he is aware of it or not. There is no such thing as a skeptic that doesn’t have an alternative proposal.
So what are the alternative proposals?
They include the notions of touch, see, mass, volume, and motion. Do we need to define the word 'touch' or the word 'motion' unambiguously in order to come up with a definition of the strategic category 'objects' or are we merely trying to establish a criterion?
We hold here that the word 'shape' does NOT have to be defined, at least not more than any of these others. What we are doing is selecting a criterion for the word ‘object’. Is an object going to be defined on the basis of our ability to touch it? Are we going to run an experiment to ‘prove’ the definition of ‘object’? Don’t we need another object to do the touching? Doesn’t this render the definition circular (i.e., by requiring the word ‘object’ to be defined on the basis of a test where another object touches it)?
For their part, mass, volume, and motion are all dynamic concepts. Objects precede motion. We’re done!
Therefore, the question is NOT, “What is the super duper, precise definition of the word ‘shape’?” The issue before us is, “Which of the following criteria are we going to choose to define the strategic word ‘object’ for the purposes of Physics: touch, see, mass, volume, motion, shape?” We don’t need to know what touch or see or shape means exactly in order to choose between these alternatives. The common notions of ordinary speech will do.
f. Is shape a concept?
Of course it is! So is the word ‘object’, the word ‘concept’, and any word you find in the dictionary!
G. Is shape itself a concept?
Again, the answer is yes. Shape invokes TWO objects or locations: it is a closed-loop line or boundary or perimeter that distinguishes what’s on the inside from what’s on the outside. We TACITLY treat the inside and the outside as objects or mediums.
Shape is a PROPERTY of an object, specifically, the ONLY property that all objects have. Not all objects have location or are 3D or have mass or have volume or move or can be touched. All objects have shape. It is the only property or characteristic that distinguishes objects such as tables and rocks from concepts such as energy and love.
h. So how is it that an object such as a rock can have a concept such as shape? What sense can such a proposal have?
Again, shape is a property. All objects have some kind of property. Some objects even have behaviors. But where’s the catch?
The catch is the verb ‘have’. We have only one verb to allude to possession: to have. Having a coin in your pocket is not the same thing as having a headache. We use the verb ‘have’ in ordinary speech to allude to both: to the possession of an object AS WELL AS to the ‘possession’ of a concept. What fiesta is doing in a very subtle manner is asking, “How is it possible for a table to ‘have’ a concept?”... when he actually insinuates that... “An object can ‘have’ an object, but not a concept! I can ‘have’ a hat on my head and skin on my bones, but not ‘have’ feelings or shape. Not in Physics." By saying that you ‘have’ shape, fiesta is insinuating that we are treating ‘shape’ as a separate entity that automatically converts the object into a relation between the object on the one hand and its shape on the other.
The key, again, is that we have no other verb to designate possession. We do not distinguish between having an object and having a concept IN ORDINARY SPEECH! To have shape means that “shape is the only universal property of an object” and NOT that “an object ‘has’ a ‘thing’ called shape... like a boy has a yo-yo in his hand” We could just as well have said that an object ‘has’ mass or motion or volume. We are clearly not treating these properties as stand alone objects separate from the object itself. Nevertheless, it should be clear that it is in ordinary speech where we say that an object ‘has’ mass or ‘has’ motion. In Science, we say respectively that the object is made of smaller constituents or has moved.
However, since shape is not a dynamic property, we cannot apply the same logic or grammar to shape that we apply to mass and motion. There is no way (in English at least) to interpret the verb ‘have’ in any other manner. We can say that an object contains or is made of so much matter (‘has’ mass) or that an object moves (to ‘have’ motion). We cannot put the phrase ‘to have shape’ in the same boat. We must simply come to terms with the fact that ‘to have shape’ means that the object ‘has’ this unique property that distinguishes it from concepts.
The extreme devil’s advocate may at this point argue that then this entire exercise reduces to a tautology.
And we reply that ‘shape’ is not equal to ‘object’. Shape is a property. Shape is what the rock ‘has’. The rock can have properties such as shape and volume and mass and it can also be said to move for the purposes of Physics. Shape does not move, and a round shape or a square shape is not a property of shape itself, but of the object. If all objects in the Universe were round, we would not need terms such as square, triangular or cylindrical. The specific shape an object takes is a property of the object that we compare and contrast against the same structural property or characteristic of other objects.
So no. We don't have a tautology. Shape is not equal to an object. Shape is one of the properties that an object 'has', yet it is the only one that is universal.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 24, 2014 2:53:53 GMT
The following is an essay written by Bill Gaede to use a specific example to help demonstrate the difference between an object and a concept.
The difference between Love and a heart.
I. What is an object?
It would seem that the difference between love and a heart would be so obvious that people wouldn't even debate the issue. However, in this day and age the great majority of people can't tell the difference. That's how far humans have come in their collective dementia. The great majority of people cannot distinguish between objects and concepts.
Physics deals only with objects. In Physics, we must have an object for else there would be nothing to study, nothing to perform activities or motion. Only an object can serve as a noun in a sentence of Physics and perform actions. We can say that a heart jumped. We cannot say that love jumped. The word 'love' can never be a noun for the purposes of Physics. It cannot serve as the subject of a sentence. It is irrational to place an article such as 'the' or 'a' in front of love and say 'The love that I had' or ‘A silly love’. And here we distinguish between ordinary speech and scientific language. In poetry everything is allowed, from analogy to metaphor to parable. In Physics, the sentence is taken literally. For instance, there is nothing wrong with saying 'Love moves mountains' in ordinary speech. It is irrational to say the same sentence in the context of a scientific presentation.
Therefore, there is an obvious qualitative difference between heart and love and we need to zero in on what that difference is. We need to come up with a broad definition of the category 'objects' which at the same time only permits the introduction of genuine objects into Physics.
It is also imperative to distinguish between concepts and objects and not end up moving concepts or having them perform actions in the course of a scientific dissertation. We have to define the strategic category 'objects' in such a way as to exclude concepts. The more conditions we put in our definition, the harder it will be to exclude certain words that are borderline.
object: that which has shape
(Synonyms: thing, something, anything, entity, substance, medium, mediator, physical, architecture, body)
The word 'object' is a static concept. If a word exhibits or embodies any sign of motion or activity, it is automatically eliminated from the list of objects. In Physics, noun, subject and object are synonyms.
This definition summarily excludes words heretofore assumed to be actors in Physics, to wit: energy, mass, matter, force, time, field, charge, plasma, wave, wave-packet, vortex, electricity, charge, Universe, and space.
II. Shape
The devil’s advocate will attempt to show that all words are founded upon other words and, thus, we end up with endless iteration. His goal is to show that we cannot define any word unambiguously (i.e., scientifically) so that he can continue with whatever definition suits his arguments.
We begin by stating that there is no skeptic who doesn’t have is own theory and this despite any denials. By definition, a skeptic is an individual who has a different idea and doesn’t like the one he is hearing. The same applies to a devil’s advocate who attempts to debunk this definition of ‘object’. He is tacitly or explicitly going to have another notion of what an object is. For instance, the most popular definition of ‘object’ in the dictionary of ordinary speech is “that which we can see or touch”. Another popular definition is “that which has mass or volume”. We can also decide to define ‘object’ as ‘that which has location or moves or can move”. Do we need to have an unambiguous definition of see, touch, mass, volume, location or motion in order to resolve this issue?
Clearly we don’t. The imprecise definitions of ordinary speech will do. What is at stake is not what is the rigorous definition of see or touch. What is at stake is the criterion that we’re going to use to define the word ‘object’. We have to choose whether we are going to use: see, touch, mass, volume, location, motion or shape. For this we do not need to know the super duper perfect definition of any of these words. We just need to know which of these criteria we’re going to invoke to define the word ‘object’.
In Science, we do not define every word in the dictionary just to please the grumbling devil’s advocate or skeptic. We define scientifically only those words that make or break our theories or that are in dispute for some reason. There has to be a justification to define a word scientifically. And here it is obvious that the devil’s advocate is simply a sore loser bent on derailing the foundations at all costs. Why didn’t he ask you to define ‘that’, ‘which’ or ‘has’? Why did he pick on ‘shape’? Are the meanings of ‘that’, ‘which’ and ‘has’ perfectly understood? In fact, as it turns out, it is much harder to define such words than a concept such as shape. Every person has an intuitive notion of what shape is. Very few people can define ‘that’, ‘which’ or ‘has’ without doing a minimum of research.
|
|
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 24, 2014 14:39:45 GMT
Let's start with a few definitions of 'object': Wikipedia: (Physical object) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_body"In physics, a physical body or physical object (sometimes simply called a body or object) is a collection of matter with some common attributes, most important, the spatial location. Examples of models of physical bodies include, but are not limited to a particle, several interacting smaller bodies (particles or other), and continuous media." Mirriam-Webster: (object) www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/object"a : something material that may be perceived by the senses <I see an object in the distance>" Here is what Gaede says: The definition of the word object
The following are common usages of the word object: a. a volume [7] b. the aggregate of locations [8, 9] c. something we can touch or see [10] His critique of a) is: A volume is the amount of space displaced by an object, a concept that tacitly embodies motion. He then goes on to explain how volume needs motion to be measured. He doesn't explain why that presents a problem though. He simply states that it does. If you know, please point it out. In his critique of b) Bill says: "The trouble is that this requires a priori knowledge of the limits of our integral, which implies that an object necessarily precedes integration." Yes, of course the object precedes integration. In the same way that an object precedes shape. If there isn't anything, then there is nothing that can have shape. Errrr, what am I missing here? In his critique of c) Bill says: "However, this definition is also circular. Words such as something, thing, entity, particle, substance, medium, physical, construct, noun, structure, and body are not definitions but synonyms. ‘ Sure, and in your definition "Object: That which has shape", 'that' is used in the place of 'object' too .... I guess your definition is circular too then. Bill then says: "We are challenging the observer to carry out a sensory experiment to determine whether the center of our attention is in fact a physical object." To which I say; How is shape NOT dependent on observation? You SEE shape. Sight is one of the senses. What the? He also says stupid shit like this: "Does an observer have to place a ruler parallel to the side of a box for the volume to morph into an object?" WTF? Volume is a quality of an object in the same way that shape is. If you cannot see the shape of an object, does the object not exist? This is insane ..... And then, the center-piece in the fruit-bowl that is Bill's mind: "This definition is circular because it invokes another object (i.e., an observer). Isn’t an asteroid an object in the absence of gossip or motion?" In the same way that I believe an asteroid existed before I saw it, Bill has to believe that the asteroid had shape before he saw it. Shape doesn't become an intrinsic quality of an object in any way other than it being believed to be so. Bill believes that shape is an intrinsic quality of object-hood in the same way that I believe that an object has volume. There is absolutely no difference in why we believe this. Bill claims that reason has led him to this belief. I claim he is full of shit, because nothing in his argument shows me that there is any more reason to believe that objects have shape, than that objects have volume. Bill says: "shape or form: inability to blend or become continuous; possessing a continuous surface or boundary; (syn.: discrete, finite)." Yes, an object has shape or form BECAUSE it is finite or discrete. Not the other way around. Bill: "Without a surface we have no object to begin with. A surface is a primordial, intrinsic attribute that belongs to the object before it interacts with a hypothetical container." Yes Bill, and without an object we would also have no surface to begin with. This is tiresome ........ Let's see what you've got, Mike.
|
|
|
Post by nicholashesed on Feb 25, 2014 2:00:51 GMT
WTF? Volume is a quality of an object in the same way that shape is. If you cannot see the shape of an object, does the object not exist? This is insane .....
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 25, 2014 2:00:59 GMT
"He then goes on to explain how volume needs motion to be measured. He doesn't explain why that presents a problem though. He simply states that it does. If you know, please point it out."
We cannot define object by "volume" because volume necessarily relates two or more objects. It relates one thing to a predefined standard. A 'unit' of volume is a predefined standard that only has meaning in relation to other objects. We cannot invoke other objects to define the term object... that would be circular.
"Sure, and in your definition "Object: That which has shape", 'that' is used in the place of 'object' too"
'That' is not a synonym for object. 'That' is purely a referential term which can refer to concepts OR objects.
"How is shape NOT dependent on observation? You SEE shape. Sight is one of the senses. What the?"
Of course you SEE shape, but the moon has shape whether you see it or not. Shape is not a concept dependent on sight, it is a concept dependent upon "inability to blend or become continuous; possessing a continuous surface or boundary." This is not a concept dependent upon seeing it.
"Bill believes that shape is an intrinsic quality of object-hood in the same way that I believe that an object has volume."
Volume is not intrinsic for the reason I explained above. It is not intrinsic because it requires you to use one object to set a standard, and then relate that standard to some other object (i.e. measure it). Shape doesn't require any of that- it is simply a term relating boundary with environment.
"Yes Bill, and without an object we would also have no surface to begin with."
Right... because object is that which has shape. Shape is the quality, object is what's being qualified. You're just making my own case for me here.
So I just read and analyzed your whole post but I'm still not even sure what you're arguing for. You've stated that object cannot be rationally defined as "that which has shape"- yet I have refuted your arguments. But you, on the other hand, have made no positive statements which specified your own definition of object.
Is it, "that which has volume"? But that's been refuted. Volume is a relation between a minimum of two objects. Object cannot rationally be defined as "a relation between two objects".
This has already been explained in Fatfist's article on fatfist.hubpages.com
"Concepts such as mass, energy, volume, motion, color and temperature establish a dynamic relation between a minimum of two objects. This necessitates for our test object to move in relation to another object before these dynamic concepts can be related and conceived. Objects precede motion. All dynamic concepts necessarily invoke at minimum two objects in different locations. Therefore, any of these proposed criteria for objecthood are inherently circular because they necessitate the invocation of two objects within the definition of ‘object’."
|
|
|
Post by nicholashesed on Feb 25, 2014 2:10:07 GMT
Yeah volume is quantitative, NOT qualitative. Thus volume could not possibly belong to any entity as an attribute.
And besides beyond the observer a volume calls for an objective container, e.g. water. But what about stars??? Stars could not possibly have volume because space is not a container that could be used to measure a star. Space has no boundaries. A star is self-contained. It is bound from its immediate surrounding.
With this definition of object all we are trying to do is remain consistent across the board so we build a study. This definition can be applied to the fundamental entity of physics as well as the most massive star.
|
|
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 25, 2014 2:34:54 GMT
Mike said: "We cannot define object by "volume" because volume necessarily relates two or more objects. It relates one thing to a predefined standard. A 'unit' of volume is a predefined standard that only has meaning in relation to other objects. We cannot invoke other objects to define the term object... that would be circular."
Are you serious? How is defining an object according to shape NOT circular in exactly the same way? When you are talking about shape, you are not only talking about 2 objects, you are talking about 3. There is the object, then there is the background, since seeing shape relies on contrast and you cannot have contrast if you don't have a background, and then there is the observer. Bill is trying to do away with the observer, but he doesn't seem to realize that shape needs to be observed. I understand that he claims shape to be intrinsic to an object, but what he doesn't seem to understand, is that shape is only shape when observed. He CLAIMS that it is intrinsic, but he is unable to PROVE it.
Mike said: 'That' is not a synonym for object. 'That' is purely a referential term which can refer to concepts OR objects.
Aaaah, can you point to 'something' please? 'Something' is fulfilling the exact same function as 'that'. How about pointing to 'object'? Same thing. 'Object' is simply a place holder for whatever you are pointing to. These are all concepts, none of them actually exist. The specific 'thing' that they refer to, exists.
Mike said: "Of course you SEE shape, but the moon has shape whether you see it or not. Shape is not a concept dependent on sight, it is a concept dependent upon "inability to blend or become continuous; possessing a continuous surface or boundary."
Oh, Christ! Saying something like "the moon has shape whether you see it or not." is a fucking belief. I thought we were talking about rational science here, not your personal beliefs. And "inability to blend or become continuous; possessing a continuous surface or boundary." is dependent on being an object. Don't you get dizzy going in circles like this?
Mike: "Volume is not intrinsic for the reason I explained above. It is not intrinsic because it requires you to use one object to set a standard, and then relate that standard to some other object (i.e. measure it). Shape doesn't require any of that- it is simply a term relating boundary with environment.
And I am saying that your explanation sucks, and it doesn't actually do what you think it does. So, before you draw any conclusions, let us focus on the explanation FIRST.
I said: "Yes Bill, and without an object we would also have no surface to begin with."
Mike said: Right... because object is that which has shape. Shape is the quality, object is what's being qualified. You're just making my own case for me here.
That is EXACTLY the problem. For any-THING to exhibit the quality 'shape' it must already BE a fucking object. No object = No shape. Inversely, there are many shapes that are NOT linked to any kind of object at all. And this is the next chapter in Bill's sophistry. Because of the way he defines an object, he had to go and change how he defines concepts. But you clowns don't see that. It blows my mind!
Mike: So I just read and analyzed your whole post but I'm still not even sure what you're arguing for. You've stated that object cannot be rationally defined as "that which has shape"- yet I have refuted your arguments. But you, on the other hand, have made no positive statements which specified your own definition of object.
I am saying that your argument that supports your definition: Object = that which has shape, is FUCKING INSANE. I gave you 2 definitions in the beginning of my post that I am COMPLETELY comfortable with. YOU claim they are invalid because of reasons YOU made up and cannot support with a comprehensible argument. Do you see how this argument thing works yet? You can keep claiming that my argument has been refuted, until you are blue in the face, but until you actually REFUTE it with a COMPREHENSIBLE argument which can be followed by SANE people, all you will have, are CLAIMS. This is exactly what Fatfist does. He does not argue, he simply CLAIMS.
Mike: But that's been refuted. Volume is a relation between a minimum of two objects. Object cannot rationally be defined as "a relation between two objects".
It has NOT been refuted. Your argument for claiming that volume is irrelevant because it "is a relation between a minimum of two objects" is what is being argued here.
Mike: This has already been explained in Fatfist's article on fatfist.hubpages.com
"Concepts such as mass, energy, volume, motion, color and temperature establish a dynamic relation between a minimum of two objects. This necessitates for our test object to move in relation to another object before these dynamic concepts can be related and conceived. Objects precede motion. All dynamic concepts necessarily invoke at minimum two objects in different locations. Therefore, any of these proposed criteria for objecthood are inherently circular because they necessitate the invocation of two objects within the definition of ‘object’."
Fatfist is an idiot. Shape is exactly the same here in that it ALSO needs at least two objects, AND motion to be observed. Objects precede motion, but shape doesn't. What I find interesting is that you jokers are actually onto something here, but you are too fucking stupid to see it.
|
|
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 25, 2014 2:48:32 GMT
Nicholashesed, you are actually hitting on something here. You have found the reason why Bill chose shape, instead of a quantitative attribute like volume. Volume is quantifiable by choosing a set measure to quantify it with, but both volume and shape is preceded by the same quality that makes something an object. Bill also doesn't know what that is. That is the problem. He overcame this problem by choosing shape exactly because it is something you simply 'see' in the same way you simply 'see' an object. He chose to call shape an intrinsic quality of an object, BECAUSE he also doesn't know WHAT that intrinsic quality is. No-one does.
We recognize objects without knowing how we do that. THAT is the problem. That is why there are no comprehensive definitions of objects. Our ability to recognize objects predates our ability to do science by millennia.
And besides beyond the observer a volume calls for an objective container, e.g. water. But what about stars??? Stars could not possibly have volume because space is not a container that could be used to measure a star. Space has no boundaries. A star is self-contained. It is bound from its immediate surrounding.
You see how playing with these boys fucks with your mind? Measurement calls for an 'objective container', wtf? Do you submerge everything you need to find the volume of, in a big bucket of water? Stars don't have volume?
With this definition of object all we are trying to do is remain consistent across the board so we build a study. This definition can be applied to the fundamental entity of physics as well as the most massive star.
Yes, I can see that. Except that you are consistently nuts, and that doesn't help anyone.
|
|
|
Post by nicholashesed on Feb 25, 2014 3:16:49 GMT
Fenris,
I honestly think you are blowing this definition way out of proportion. You are over-analyzing.
Fenris: Are you serious? How is defining an object according to shape NOT circular in exactly the same way? When you are talking about shape, you are not only talking about 2 objects, you are talking about 3. There is the object, then there is the background, since seeing shape relies on contrast and you cannot have contrast if you don't have a background, and then there is the observer. Bill is trying to do away with the observer, but he doesn't seem to realize that shape needs to be observed. I understand that he claims shape to be intrinsic to an object, but what he doesn't seem to understand, is that shape is only shape when observed. He CLAIMS that it is intrinsic, but he is unable to PROVE it.
Nicholas: the background is not an object. The background of a star refers to a shapeless nothing, space. Yes form refers to a concept but it is an inherent and native property of all objects. That is why it is useful to use this concept in a definition of object with the intention of studying physics.
Fenris: Aaaah, can you point to 'something' please? 'Something' is fulfilling the exact same function as 'that'. How about pointing to 'object'? Same thing. 'Object' is simply a place holder for whatever you are pointing to. These are all concepts, none of them actually exist. The specific 'thing' that they refer to, exists.
Nicholas: in context to the definition 'that' is a placeholder for all words of all languages. The idea is you plug a word into the definition to help resolve whether or not the referent has shape. Fenris: Oh, Christ! Saying something like "the moon has shape whether you see it or not." is a fucking belief. I thought we were talking about rational science here, not your personal beliefs. And "inability to blend or become continuous; possessing a continuous surface or boundary." is dependent on being an object. Don't you get dizzy going in circles like this?
Nicholas: It is you fenris who is going in circles. The definition provides a single, crisp, clean, clear, restricted, sound description of the word object and this is used to build a study of physics. You are beyond devil's advocate here. You seem to be projecting problems unto the definition.
Fenris: That is EXACTLY the problem. For any-THING to exhibit the quality 'shape' it must already BE a fucking object. No object = No shape. Inversely, there are many shapes that are NOT linked to any kind of object at all. And this is the next chapter in Bill's sophistry. Because of the way he defines an object, he had to go and change how he defines concepts. But you clowns don't see that. It blows my mind!
Nicholas: Many shapes not linked to objects??? Care to name any??? You are confusing objects that exist (real objects) with abstract objects (circles, squares) that do not exist. All we are doing is defining the word object so that it can be used consistently in a study of physics. The definition can be applied to the assumed fundamental entity of physics all the way up to the most massive astronomical object that exists.
Fenris: It has NOT been refuted. Your argument for claiming that volume is irrelevant because it "is a relation between a minimum of two objects" is what is being argued here.
Nicholas: I refuted it above. Volume is quantitative. It cannot possibly serve as an attributive property of entities.
Fenris: Fatfist is an idiot. Shape is exactly the same here in that it ALSO needs at least two objects, AND motion to be observed. Objects precede motion, but shape doesn't. What I find interesting is that you jokers are actually onto something here, but you are too fucking stupid to see it.
Nicholas: So know we are observing shape and not the object itself? You are the one who is insane man. Shape is a concept used to describe all objects: real and abstract.
And you are obviously biased against Fattie and Bill for whatever reason. You are taking their words out of context and blowing all this out of proportion.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 25, 2014 3:22:36 GMT
Thanks for comprehensive responses, Fenris! I'm excited about your interest, even if you have idiotic disagreements.
I'll be back with a thorough rebuttal tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by nicholashesed on Feb 25, 2014 3:28:11 GMT
Nicholashesed, you are actually hitting on something here. You have found the reason why Bill chose shape, instead of a quantitative attribute like volume. Volume is quantifiable by choosing a set measure to quantify it with, but both volume and shape is preceded by the same quality that makes something an object. Bill also doesn't know what that is. That is the problem. He overcame this problem by choosing shape exactly because it is something you simply 'see' in the same way you simply 'see' an object. He chose to call shape an intrinsic quality of an object, BECAUSE he also doesn't know WHAT that intrinsic quality is. No-one does. We recognize objects without knowing how we do that. THAT is the problem. That is why there are no comprehensive definitions of objects. Our ability to recognize objects predates our ability to do science by millennia. And besides beyond the observer a volume calls for an objective container, e.g. water. But what about stars??? Stars could not possibly have volume because space is not a container that could be used to measure a star. Space has no boundaries. A star is self-contained. It is bound from its immediate surrounding.
You see how playing with these boys fucks with your mind? Measurement calls for an 'objective container', wtf? Do you submerge everything you need to find the volume of, in a big bucket of water? Stars don't have volume? With this definition of object all we are trying to do is remain consistent across the board so we build a study. This definition can be applied to the fundamental entity of physics as well as the most massive star.
Yes, I can see that. Except that you are consistently nuts, and that doesn't help anyone. I still think you are blowing this out of proportion. We obviously have a different manner of practicing physics/science. Is that so hard to figure out??? Our ability to do science began with the first human ape who could reason. The intrinsic quality of all objects is defined as form. What belongs to all objects is the fundamental entity but this is assumed. The type of measurement called volume first required water and that is what the whole system of measurements through the ages is built off of. Do you know how the Greek figured out how to measure his idea of volume??? We are consistently revolutionary in our thought. Gaede conceived of a way to do physics without the whitewash of math. No need to cry about it.
|
|
|
Post by fatfist on Feb 25, 2014 3:41:58 GMT
YAAAAAAAWN! Nothing new here
|
|
|
Post by fatfist on Feb 25, 2014 6:07:30 GMT
Femtard Andre Jacobs…..you can hate lardass Fattie and portly Gaede for shape being the only intrinsic property of object. But just as Einstein didn’t invent Relativity, neither did us fatfucks invent shape/form. Mother Nature invented this innate property. Shape is the only intrinsic, static and innate relation that can possibly be conceptualized or identified…..and everybody knew it starting with the Greeks thousands of years ago. Where the fuck have you been all this time, poo-poo-head Andre? Aristotle defined an object in terms of 'form.' He was right on the money, but didn’t realize the importance of what he discovered in Mother Nature. For that matter, neither did any mathematician or philosopher that came after. It is the definition of the word object which destroys ANY theory of Math Fizzics. “by form I mean the essence of each thing, and its primary substance” -- Aristotle, Metaphysics, Ch. 7 (c. 330 BC).Even God discloses to us that ALL invisible (i.e. you can't see them...HA!) entities, light, wind, and even God Himself, absolutely have shape (form): Job 4:15-17 “A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A form stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice: 'Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?” (Here, Eliphaz receives a revelation from God in a dream) Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light” Amos 4:13 “He who forms the mountains, creates the wind”Robert Grosseteste stated in his treatise On Light in the 1220’s that shape is an inseparable (i.e. intrinsic) property of objects: “For the form cannot desert matter, because it is inseparable from it and matter itself cannot be deprived of form” - Robert GrossetesteEven loud-mouthed St. Augustine rationalized that objects had shape: “Hast not Thou taught me, O Lord, that before Thou didst form and separate this formless matter, there was nothing, neither color, nor figure, nor body, nor spirit ? Yet not altogether nothing; there was a certain formlessness without any shape.” (Confessions, Book 12, Ch. 3) “Why, therefore, may I not consider the formlessness of matter--which Thou hadst created without shape, whereof to make this shapely world.” (Confessions, Book 12, Ch. 4) “For where there is no shape nor order, nothing either cometh or goeth” (Confessions, Book 12, Ch. 9) “where there is no form there can be no distinction between "this" or "that” (Confessions, Book 12, Ch. 13)If you read my article on “what is shape”, your anger will suddenly explode through the roof! You will NEVER EVER have another restful night of sleep in your miserable butthurt life again. You will never enjoy another meal with your family again. Your depression will get worse. Why? Because the article explains in spades why it is impossible to define an object without using shape. Any other alleged property you attribute to the term object is external and necessarily results in a contradiction! Eat that!
|
|
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 25, 2014 11:05:21 GMT
Fatfist, you are just too stupid for words. I give up .... Fatfuck: “ by form I mean the essence of each thing, and its primary substance” -- Aristotle, Metaphysics, Ch. 7 (c. 330 BC). " "The only remaining candidate for primary substance seems to be form (which Aristotle now begins to call essence). It is clear that Aristotle is now focusing on the concept of the substance of something - i.e., what it is about an individual plant or animal (what the Categories called a “primary substance”) that makes it a self-subsistent, independent, thing. Some evidence:" faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/zeta17.htm"For example, the matter of a house is the bricks, stones, timbers etc., or whatever constitutes the potential house, while the form of the substance is the actual house, namely 'covering for bodies and chattels' or any other differentia (see also predicables) that let us define something as a house. The formula that gives the components is the account of the matter, and the formula that gives the differentia is the account of the form.[44]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#Substance.2C_potentiality_and_actualityWhat Aristotle meant by 'form' and what you mean by 'form' are two very different things. I don't expect you to understand this though ..... I am posting this just in case someone with an actual brain, that actually works, passes this way. And I tried reading your article on shape, but I had to give up because it is so full of shit I was afraid I may just vomit on my keyboard.
|
|