|
|
Post by monkemind on Feb 25, 2014 14:29:19 GMT
Fenris Translated:
"I am out manned, out gunned, and out of my depth. I have no argument, therefore I give up."
Just before this part Andre the Pigmy quoted:
“by form I mean the essence of each thing, and its primary substance” -- Aristotle, Metaphysics, Ch. 7 (c. 330 BC).
was this disclaimer:
"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."
And neither does Fenris realize the importance...
What an irrelevant heaping pile of horse flop, this Andre Jacobs is!
|
|
|
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 25, 2014 14:49:34 GMT
Monkemind, all your definition of 'object' destroys is any credibility you may think you have. Oh, this thread IS about science (supposedly) but you are still just slinging shit. I didn't miss that ....
|
|
|
|
Post by fatfist on Feb 25, 2014 14:51:11 GMT
Femtard Andre Jacobs…..LOL…read the articles you posted again and again and again…..they confirm that the only intrinsic property of all objects is shape/form. Read carefully... whether the author tries to misrepresent (i.e. strawman) or attack (i.e. butthurt) what Aristotle, Grosseteste, St. Augustine, God or tons of others through the millennia discovered about objects having shape…..their conclusion is that objects have shape/form. You said nothing, Femtard Andre 
Castrated (by his wife of course) Femtard Andre Jacobs: “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.”
Being majorly butthurt and suffering from acute Mental Illness, Depression, Anxiety and Insomnia is the greatest REWARD you can ever offer us. The fact that an insignificant, smelly, pimple-faced, flat-footed, toe-fungused, lardass Internet troll named “Fatfist Fattie” has caused you severe emotional problems by Educating you in entry-level Physics…..just goes to show how stupidly worthless you really are 
Here’s some instant relief for what ills you….
|
|
|
|
Post by monkemind on Feb 25, 2014 15:02:33 GMT
"Monkemind, all your definition of 'object' destroys is any credibility you may think you have. Oh, this thread IS about science (supposedly) but you are still just slinging shit. I didn't miss that .... ":
I never gave my definition for object. And you're now confusing this thread with with the ad hom thread. What a poor muff mustard cunt rag!
|
|
|
|
Post by nicholashesed on Feb 25, 2014 15:03:14 GMT
One needs a lot of therapy to recover from the endless b.s. put out by the philosophers over the millenia. This overindulgence has lead Western Civilization to discourses ON NOTHING. The philosophers understood form but they could not be content with what they had discovered. They over-analyzed and spit out a so many words that they confused all their students to this day.
But eventually one has to be a man has to take a stand and decide this is enough. The single intrinsic native property common to all objects is form. End of story. We can all get on with our lives now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 25, 2014 15:04:50 GMT
Fatfuck McFist, thank you. I appreciate the concern. Undeserved, but I understand that you bleeding heart pseudo-scientific lame-brained circle-jerks have this propensity to 'help' each other out. I'm OK though.
Just to be sure you don't fall over your own shape/form, maybe you should go take a look at what 'ole Aristotle may actually have been talking about. I know that may be a severe brain-strain for someone in your obviously deteriorated mental position, but you may just have an epiphany, or shit yourself. Either way, you should experience some relief.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 25, 2014 15:09:47 GMT
Monkemind, OMG .... Seriously, fucknerd? I was referencing something you said in the Ad Hom thread about you slinging shit because it was NOT about science ..... Why do I even bother? If I were you, I would seriously consider bequeathing my body to science, because you may actually be a real live instance of the philosophical zombies one finds in the movies. Nobody can seriously be this stupid with functioning frontal lobes ...
|
|
|
|
Post by monkemind on Feb 25, 2014 15:17:27 GMT
Typical, can't keep your threads straight. Can't keep track of what you say. Can't keep subjects straight and can't understand anything you read.
Why do you bother? It's no bother to you at all. You're a fucking glutton for punishment. A bitchwit shemale with a masochistic bent.
If I were you, I would just go lie down in the sewer when you die, because then you would just naturally recycle with all the other shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 25, 2014 15:19:15 GMT
Nicholas, I may agree with you here: "One needs a lot of therapy to recover from the endless b.s. put out by the philosophers over the millenia. This overindulgence has lead Western Civilization to discourses ON NOTHING. The philosophers understood form but they could not be content with what they had discovered. They over-analyzed and spit out a so many words that they confused all their students to this day. But eventually one has to be a man has to take a stand and decide this is enough. The single intrinsic native property common to all objects is form. End of story. We can all get on with our lives now." If it wasn't for a little issue of internal consistency. Have you even read what Bill wrote about objects? Let's start with the first line ... about physics being about objects. Check this shit out: "Physics (from Ancient Greek: φυσική (ἐπιστήμη) phusikḗ (epistḗmē) “knowledge of nature”, from φύσις phúsis "nature"[1][2][3][4][5]) is the natural science that involves the study of matter[6] and its motion through space and time, along with related concepts such as energy and force.[7] More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves.[8][9][10]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhysicsNo mention of objects .... Is it possible that they may have heard Bill coming? |
|
|
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 25, 2014 15:23:00 GMT
Monkemind, WTF? I thought this was a stand-up comedy act from the twilight years! You mean you guys have been serious all this time?! I am a little bit upset now.... For you I mean. I don't like hurting old people .....
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 25, 2014 15:23:19 GMT
This was the only thing Fenris said that even resembled a critical response, so I'll address this now:
" 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."
When talking about shape we are only considered ONE object conceptually, as distinguished from SPACE. The background of space is NOT an object- it is NOTHING, and the object is necessarily distinguished from nothing by definition... this issue is settle conceptually, not by observation. A thing is necessarily different from nothing whether we observe it or not. I repeat- this is a conceptual issue that is settled by critical thinking alone- no observation involved.
What differentiates an object from nothing is that one has shape and one lacks it.
So your critique here is nonsense. You clearly did not think this through.
|
|
|
|
Post by monkemind on Feb 25, 2014 15:24:54 GMT
All those concepts and not single object! Way to go Wiki. That explains why numbnuts Andre Jacobs can't understand anything, he's hooked on Wiki! What a retarded knob goblin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 25, 2014 15:26:36 GMT
Hooked on wiki...
Yup, it's a helluva drug. It gives you that smug sense of satisfaction that only popular opinion can give you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 25, 2014 15:37:34 GMT
Mike, I was seriously hoping you were going to bring a real reply.
You: "When talking about shape we are only considered ONE object conceptually, as distinguished from SPACE. The background of space is NOT an object- it is NOTHING, and the object is necessarily distinguished from nothing by definition... this issue is settle conceptually, not by observation. A thing is necessarily different from nothing whether we observe it or not. I repeat- this is a conceptual issue that is settled by critical thinking alone- no observation involved.
What differentiates an object from nothing is that one has shape and one lacks it.
So your critique here is nonsense. You clearly did not think this through."
Nothing is not the same as not-an-object. It is a conceptual illusion to say that space is nothing. 'Nothing' is one of those terms that simply exists because of the existence of 'something' .... an object, in your case. It is not possible, conceptually, for there to be something like 'nothing'. But that is besides the point.
I guess the only way to really critique your belief here, is to show you the internal inconsistencies. Having been through this with both Fatfist, and Bill, I seriously doubt that it will be possible for you to see it either. I find that very interesting.
Let me leave you with this question though: Is there any area in science where believing in your definition, actually helps clarify anything? The same goes for Bill's Rope Hypothesis. I asked Fatfist this once, but never got an answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 25, 2014 16:06:44 GMT
"Nothing is not the same as not-an-object."
Right, "nothing" LACKS shape, and "something" (in the context of physics) HAS shape, so your bullshit argument that it takes 3 objects for a single object to have shape is refuted since it only takes one object is necessarily distinct from a background of nothing.
" It is a conceptual illusion to say that space is nothing."
Space is necessarily nothing since it is shapeless.
" 'Nothing' is one of those terms that simply exists because of the existence of 'something'"
Terms do not 'exist', retard. Exist applies only to objects WITH LOCATION. Not all objects exist, but only objects may exist. Once again you've shown how incoherent your thoughts are.
"It is not possible, conceptually, for there to be something like 'nothing'."
Right, an SPACE is a synonym for nothing. Space is not "a something". This is the point you have failed to grasp.
"I guess the only way to really critique your belief here, is to show you the internal inconsistencies."
You haven't shown a single internal inconsistency or any kind of inconsistency whatsoever (i.e. contradiction) in this definition. This thread stands as a record of that for anyone to see and laugh at your incompetency in reasoning.
"Is there any area in science where believing in your definition, actually helps clarify anything?"
First of all, belief has nothing to do with it. This is all a matter of reasoning and critical thinking. You can understand these definitions... none of us "believe" in them or expect you to "believe" in them. You rationally reason them & understand the definitions because they are non-contradictory.
But what does it clarify? It clarifies that the hypothetical, conceptual basis of Quantum, Relativity and any other math-based fizzicks is total bunk. It clarifies WHY using "fields, forces, charges, points, waves" ect. as mediating objects for phenomena in their theories is unscientific NONSENSE. It clarifies the fact that mathfizzicks hasn't rationally explained a single phenomena of nature and will NEVER do so, so long as they continue using these shapeless concepts as if they are objects.
|
|
