|
Post by monkemind on Feb 25, 2014 16:24:23 GMT
Andre Jacobs said: "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."
What a confused, mumbling, rambling rant. At least you consistently make no sense.
No'thing' is exactly the same as 'not-an-object'. Thing is a synonym for object. No thing - no object.
Nothing has the distinction of being a concept which is dependent upon other concepts. See that's the 'thing' about concepts...they are relational! Nothing is a relational word, a concept necessary to conceive of shape. What is a property common to ALL objects? Shape! Without the concept 'nothing' there would be no concept shape, no relation between what is inside a border and what is outside of a border.
Mike covered the rest of that nonsense! Geesh! You're not even putting forth an effort when it comes to rational discourse. I guess we'll never get to hear about those new 'layers of argument', they're buried under layers of shit.
|
|
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 25, 2014 16:48:24 GMT
Mike,
Mike: 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.
Moron alert! Please explain how you can use a term such as 'distinct from' while denying the observer? I count 'space' as an object because one could argue that it is 'something' rather than 'nothing'. In relation to an object it definitely IS.
Mike: Space is necessarily nothing since it is shapeless.
Only according to your definition. Not according to mine.
Mike: 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.
Words exist. Concepts exist. You exist. Space exists. See, we can go on like this forever. You claim something, I counter-claim something. You blame me for not making sense and I blame you for not making sense. This is not an argument. If we are honest with ourselves, we will have to agree about some kind of common ground from where to argue from.
Mike: Right, an SPACE is a synonym for nothing. Space is not "a something". This is the point you have failed to grasp.
And yet again. This is how you CHOOSE to see it. This point is not rationally defensible.
Mike: You haven't shown a single internal inconsistency or any kind of inconsistency whatsoever (i.e. contradiction) in this definition.
I have, but you cannot see it. You think you are being rational, but you are not. That is why I call what you are doing a 'belief'. You have chosen to believe in Bill's idea, and what I find a mystery, is 'why?'. I don't understand it. It looks like mass hysteria to me. You, and the other jokers here, are obviously functional members of society (I have my doubts about Monkemind), and when I read some of the other stuff you write, you make a lot of sense. On this particular issue you are all fucked in the head though.
Mike: 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.
Bullshit. You are arguing that shape is intrinsic to an object but volume is not. Can an object 'have' location without volume? Then you concoct some insane argument about objects not needing to move to be objects, and movement being necessary for measurement. Which is true, but unrelated to the point of an object's existence. You completely ignore the observer's part in the existence of 'shape' and equate 'shape' with Aristotle's 'form', when it should be obvious to a 5 year old that the word is not being used in the same way. You need to redefine concepts to fit with your understanding of shape, and create non-existent categories like 'abstract objects'. You go through all these mental acrobatics to be able to use a 'simple' definition of what an object is, when a 3 year old can tell what an object is without any consideration of physics at all.
Mike: 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.
This may very well be true, but it is NOT true because of your definition of what an object is. Just look at Bill's rope hypothesis and ask yourself what it ads to electromagnetic waves other than a mess of unexplained strands of 'ropes' connecting every particle in the universe to every other particle in the universe. It's insane.
|
|
|
Post by nicholashesed on Feb 25, 2014 17:10:22 GMT
Now you are going off in tangents Fenri. What is your definition of space? What hypothesis and theory do you hold to? What is your definition of object? Post them in the Ring or in other threads and we can debate about it there. Holding to Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory is not mass hysteria. We just have a strong base. EM & TT might seem crazy to those who have been bred on spacetime, particle physics/quantum, mathematics, etc. but it is a rational hypothesis and theory. Have you bothered studying WGDE? Gaede solved a lot of problems. Here is a list on my blog for reference: ccosmology.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-accomplishments-of-em-rope.html We can debate EM & TT in other threads. Just post your challenges.
|
|
|
Post by monkemind on Feb 25, 2014 17:35:31 GMT
He can't stay on topic, Nicholas. It's all part of his subterfuge and intellectual dishonesty. This egomaniac will make claim after claim without substantiating anything. When he gets called on something he changes the topic, or just ignores it all together.
All he needs to do is actually define his terms scientifically, or show a single exception to the ones he has been provided, and he will have finally made a point. BUT he won't. He can't. He has tried and tried and he can't give it up because of his need to be right, to believe, to have the truth. Religion has badly damaged his mind, and his father has badly damaged his anus.
Hey, Andre Jacobs, does your dad know you cheated on him with your brother?
I know your mom and sister found out you cheated on them. What a sad fucked up family you have there, Andre!
|
|
|
Post by monkemind on Feb 25, 2014 17:36:12 GMT
BTW, here if you wish to redeem yourself:
exist_______________? space_______________? Object______________? Concept_____________?
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 25, 2014 20:15:17 GMT
Well, Fenris. After reading your last post, I rest my case. You've made so many unjustified claims that it's clear you're just looking to disagree the rational position at all costs. You don't feel the need to actually showcase any contradictions in my arguments- you just disagree and act like you've justified your garbage.
This pretty much sums it up: "See, we can go on like this forever. You claim something, I counter-claim something." -Idiot Fenris
The difference between me and you is that I have shown your claims to be contradictory. You have not provided me with that luxury for my arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 25, 2014 20:16:17 GMT
I will pick up the argument again if you do answer the Monkey's challenge of clearly defining the terms he posted.
|
|
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 26, 2014 0:13:06 GMT
Mike, look at Bill's first critique of the definition of an object:
"a. A volume is the amount of space displaced by an object, a
concept that tacitly embodies motion. The object is the fish; the water
it displaces is the volume. The observer had to sweep a point to obtain
a line, scan the line to define the base, and raise the base to
conceptualize the volume. A magnitude such as X3 offers no clue
regarding whether it represents an object, and in fact it doesn’t. If X is
specified to be in kilograms or seconds, clearly the exponent 3 tells us
nothing about structural dimensionality (i.e., length, width, and
height). If, instead, X is specified to be in meters, it is incumbent upon
us to establish first whether this unit represents a distance, a
displacement, or the length of the side of an object. From a conceptual
point of view, a meter is always the embodiment of motion. A meter
is a relation, a standard defined in terms of distance traveled. [11] An
extrinsic observer must roll the measuring tape along the sides of a
cube and make a series of comparisons to derive its volume. Hence,
the meter is never a static unit of length or separation."
Can you point out to me the argument that states that an object should not be defined with the use of motion? There is also the assumption that an object should not be defined by an observer. Please roll out that argument as well. Or point me to where Bill actually states his argument, other than mentioning it, which constitutes a claim, and NOT an argument.
What I am trying to do here, is breaking it down into tiny little steps, to show you the inconsistencies in what you call an argument.
|
|
|
Post by nicholashesed on Feb 26, 2014 1:13:01 GMT
It is astonishing how it is so difficult for some to understandd the simplest of all words:
Res
I suppose we have all the genius theologians, philosophers, and physicists to thank for this, not to mention all the blind eyed sheep through the ages. Though all their endless discourses and endless word games they could never understand the easiest of all words.
res res res res res
What a joke!!! What a dream.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 26, 2014 3:04:42 GMT
You've been given a clear challenge, Fenris. Answer it or shut up. I'm happy to answer your questions but this conversation will not continue until you answer it.
|
|
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 26, 2014 8:49:50 GMT
Here you go ...... All from Mirriam-Webster's online dictionary.
ex·ist intransitive verb \ig-ˈzist\
: to have actual being : to be real
: to continue to be or to live
Full Definition of EXIST
1
a : to have real being whether material or spiritual <did unicorns exist> <the largest galaxy known to exist>
b : to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions <strange ideas existed in his mind>
2
: to continue to be <racism still exists in society>
3
a : to have life or the functions of vitality <we cannot exist without oxygen>
b : to live at an inferior level or under adverse circumstances <the hungry existing from day to day>
space noun, often attributive \ˈspās\
: the amount of an area, room, surface, etc., that is empty or available for use
: an area that is used or available for a specific purpose
: an empty area between things
Full Definition of SPACE
1
: a period of time; also : its duration
2
a : a limited extent in one, two, or three dimensions : distance, area, volume
b : an extent set apart or available <parking space> <floor space>
c : the distance from other people or things that a person needs in order to remain comfortable <invading my personal space>
3
: one of the degrees between or above or below the lines of a musical staff — compare line
4
a : a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction <infinite space and time>
b : physical space independent of what occupies it —called also absolute space
I have already given you two definitions of 'object'.
con·cept noun \ˈkän-ˌsept\
: an idea of what something is or how it works
Full Definition of CONCEPT
1
: something conceived in the mind : thought, notion
2
: an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances
|
|
|
Post by nicholashesed on Feb 26, 2014 13:27:44 GMT
you have proven yourself to be full of it Fenris. Those definitions are ridiculous. They are for the most part synonymous And you are circumventing the century old philosophical debate over the definitions of res and existentia; not to mention why we define time for the purposes of physics. And btw one cannot make a claim about a definition or believe in a definition.
What a joke.
|
|
|
Post by fatfist on Feb 26, 2014 13:38:58 GMT
Ha ha ha ha ha same shit he posted in my hub over a year ago.....just repetition of shit that even St. Augustine refuted in spades.....hilarious.
How can anybody think they can take this fool seriously?
Epic troll
|
|
|
Post by fatfist on Feb 26, 2014 13:46:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 26, 2014 14:08:43 GMT
Nicholas,
Where is your argument?
|
|