Reply With Quote
He didn't make a point.
Doesn't have to be exactly the same. If it has the basic properties of a , it's a .
He didn't make a point.
Every is like a snowflake.
Yes, he did, it went over your head and right up your ass.
But it still isn't the same .
I agree, but he doesn't "get" it.
And now he will get on.
Blake, take today and then again tomorrow.
Look at them both.
Smell them both.
Feel them both.
Taste them both.
And listen to them both when they come out.
Then tell us if they are the same.
That was some funny right there!I agree, but he doesn't "get" it.
And now he will get on.
Blake, take today and then again tomorrow.
Look at them both.
Smell them both.
Feel them both.
Taste them both.
And listen to them both when they come out.
Then tell us if they are the same.
But then we have to wait for blake to let us know if it is funny , or serious .That was some funny right there!
I wonder if his response will be full of .
Lol. You're attacking me because I don't tote all the arguments from my side? That's just what a reasonable person does. They can judge things for themselves instead of supporting anything that agrees with them.
So you don't know how to multi-quote...Case in point, -because I am not doing the asinine line by line- you say that categorical has nothing to do with categories. Problem is you never present what it does mean. You just say I am wrong and don't understand and move on. Couple of things I will point out. First the term is German and was translated from 19th century classics. You are saying that translated a word but chose the adjective form of a word that means something completely different. A word that also happens to be the name of Aristotles arguably most important work and how the term is defined.
All you have to do is type in 'categorical' into a dictionary Web site, and you'll get the definition I used way back when I first called you out. 'Categorical' means, "overarching, not bound by cir stance". A categorical imperative is an obligation that exists regardless of what kind of situation it's applied in. That's contrasted with a hypothetical imperative, which is situational. Hence why I said the CI was a useless concept, since even Kant could only come up with one, which was essentially the golden rule.
Most of this exchange could been avoided if you simply looked up the term when I said you needed to.
You don't know what the term 'atheism' means, and you keep saying stupid things as a result. There's not a middle ground between atheism and theism, just like there isn't between aerobic and anaerobic environment. When two words are direct opposites, something is one or the other. An environment either has oxygen or it doesn't; you either have the belief that god exists or you don't. , the thread itself took a turn talking about this exact thing just two pages ago.You do this on several items. The discussion of the an hesis paradigm, the requirement that deduction consider all possibilities, and so on you do the same. You are incredibly full of in your nihilism. Say no and give no construction.
Again, didn't argue for natural law. Didn't even bring it up. I made my constructive, and you haven't refuted it. I repeated it, and you still can't address it. No one's being coy. You just keep saying dumb over and over again and think it's my job to rebut it.What I think is that you don't understand and bluster bull . If you do not find the natural law and prima causa arguments that you have bandied about to be valid then fine. If you don't want others to examine some other alternate metaphysical construct you have yet to make then that is fine too. Scientologists do the same coy horse too.
-Infinity is not a number. You haven't shown how it is a number. You've simply argued that some series have no end. But that's not the same thing as saying something equals infinity.You certainly have no interest in objective proof. The comment on infinity not being a 'real number' was particularly amusing considering I just gave several examples of how the number manifests in reality. The meme is that it is not a 'rational number' meaning that we cannot create an analog of it using ratios and orders of logs. It is indicated only by itself but there it is just the same. Please tell me more how i am not the one that doesn't understand. Note how I negate your argument with an emotional characterization much like you do BUT MORESO construct a counter example?
-Irrational numbers can be expressed just fine. They have to be rounded, sure, but it's not like anyone's wondering if pi is smaller than four.
-Infinity can be expressed as well. That's the whole point of limits.
-Yes, you don't understand.
No, there is not an empirical example of infinity. You can't observe something going on forever. There are mathematical examples of functions that have no upper bound and all that, but that's not the same thing. Math is not part of empiricism, but I'm not surprised that you didn't know that.There are empirical examples of the infinite, unending, unbounded, etc. It is what it is and that still means what it means regarding any logical deduction. It may be tiresome for you to have to consider things that are not your own construction but the implication is still there. You can waffle from metaphysical proof to metaphysical argument and continue to handwave at arbitrary distinctions but it speaks to the very core of everything. It is principle as to how something is proven.
You show me someone who's counted to infinity, and I'll give you the point.
The question is: After you take a , are you holding it, or are you not holding it?
I think that depends on if you are testing to see if it was the same you took previously. That would require holding it.
And for that we will have to patiently wait for that little blake to do his ty tests.
He asked a question. You're a dumb .
If you no longer have then you're not omni
Excellent.
Based on my criteria, I can. I am all the things that hold eggs, ergo all held eggs are held by me and all eggs are held by something, even if it's a chicken. God is said to be all things at once, since all things came from God, yet somehow some here think that same God can be limited if that God chooses to, which would make that God no longer "all things", ergo, by definition, not God, so a paradox ensues and we end up fapping.
Bull
Your asshole is so reamed out that falls out like lumber off the back of a truck.
But how scary were they to you? If you think the future of not being around is scary, then why not the past?
Fapping?
So what else is new?
It wasn't scary to me 'cause I wasn't around, in the future it won't be scary either 'cause I won't be around. But right now that I am indeed around is ing scary to think that after 60 years or so (if everything goes well) I will be gone for eternity.
Please tell me how does it feel to think you're making a good question and then realizing you made a pretty dumb one?
I well understand what you intend by your categories. I know what an a not theist is. What I want to know is what part of "I reject your an hesis paradigm and similar categorical imperatives as self assuming bull " was hard to understand?
The word categories is the same in german, english, french, latin and of course greek because the word is derived from a book where Aristotle coined the term in BC times.
I think it pretty clear that you are not familiar with the work. Did it ever occur to you where the cliche of renaissance era philosophers being heavily influenced by the greeks came from? At least he didn't dumb down to binary tripe like your ilk. Kant and Ari at least sought Virtue.
You just are not on the level and can only say negations and google basic definitions. Google came up with "true regardless of cir stance" and to me that sounds just like "universal truth" which sounds an awful like Platonic forms and Aristotelian categories. It's in the ing name for 's sake. What do not mutually exclusive mean? Funny how things come full circle nonetheless your assertions.
I cannot state with absolute certainty that certain geometric ratio are infinite but they behave unbounded. At the same token you cannot demonstrate in any way that they are bounded.
We are talking in terms of proofs and while you can try to limit the scope of the universe rationally, you cannot disprove that certain physical phenomenon are infinite in reality. This again speaks to your presumption. You cannot prove the universe at any point in time is finite much less for all time.
Until you show me that pi's lowest order is then there are real world consistent examples of infinite behavior. I cannot with absolute certainty say that it will never end but after decades of computation using the strongest computers we have, I can tell you what is more probable.
It is the entire point of the search for the atom. We are down to quarks and their behavior doesn't seem to be an end point. Never mind that the standard model does not have binary symmetry which speaks to the simpleminded approximation that is your an hesis argument but I digress.
You also don't understand the point of infinity as a number. It implies no limit regardless of direction or scale in and of itself just as 1 implies a singular proportion. Unless you have orthogonal or similar symmetry infinity begets itself when it projects onto itself and convergence is impossible to achieve. That makes it undefined but not unreal. There is a difference for all your hand waving at symbols and jargon.
Your comment on numbers in and of themselves not being empirical just speaks to your box of thinking. Nevertheless when you project the proportions and directions of finite numbers and cartesian directions on to physical analogs they show repeatable results verifiable results. The same holds true for projecting infinity onto physical analogs ie vectors. Those two work repeatably ie are demonstrable empirically.
Quite frankly you sound like 18th century christian philosophers arguing the reality of Reimann and Euler's work. We know who won that debate because of the reality of things like mechanics (infinitesimal calculus), EM spectrum analysis (infinite convolutions), and thermodynamics (both). Newton et al put all your bull to bed. Inertia indeed.
Infinity is a proven number with defined properties just like the numbers "1" and "2." Your number theory is at about the same level as your philosophy ie ty.
You sound like an idiot. That's the only thing to understand. You misused four terms in one sentence. That's impressive.
You didn't look up 'categorical', did you? 'Category' may mean whatever it does in whatever language, but 'categorical' doesn't mean "of categories" in English.The word categories is the same in german, english, french, latin and of course greek because the word is derived from a book where Aristotle coined the term in BC times.
Lol, "Ari". Friend of yours, is he? You have no idea what Kant said if you think he cared about categorizing things. You quote Nietzsche's attack on Kantism without knowing the first thing about what Nietzsche was objecting to.I think it pretty clear that you are not familiar with the work. Did it ever occur to you where the cliche of renaissance era philosophers being heavily influenced by the greeks came from? At least he didn't dumb down to binary tripe like your ilk. Kant and Ari at least sought Virtue.
The ? So it turns out you did Google 'categorical', saw that it didn't mean, "of categories" and are now trying to claim that it's wrong and you're right because ... what? Kant argued that there is such a thing as objective morality, but his only example is so weak that no one even cites it. I'm sorry that you keep trying to revive it by incorrectly using the term 'categorical imperative', but it's never meant what you think it means.You just are not on the level and can only say negations and google basic definitions. Google came up with "true regardless of cir stance" and to me that sounds just like "universal truth" which sounds an awful like Platonic forms and Aristotelian categories. It's in the ing name for 's sake. What do not mutually exclusive mean? Funny how things come full circle nonetheless your assertions.
Lol. Trying to use the "you can't prove me wrong" line of reasoning you thought I suggested. Anyway, manipulating numbers is not empirical evidence that infinity exists in the real world. There are plenty of irrational numbers which cannot be completely expressed, and there are expressions that we can use in place of infinity. But neither of those are empirical things; they're both just part of math. If you try to measure a circle, you won't get an infinite length because pi doesn't terminate. We only deal in finite numbers empirically. Only when we apply theory do we get infinities, hence all the you keep saying about models.I cannot state with absolute certainty that certain geometric ratio are infinite but they behave unbounded. At the same token you cannot demonstrate in any way that they are bounded.
Until you show me that pi's lowest order is then there are real world consistent examples of infinite behavior. I cannot with absolute certainty say that it will never end but after decades of computation using the strongest computers we have, I can tell you what is more probable.
Infinity is no more a number than 'nowhere' is a place. It's not a fake or undefined number -- it's a concept (and not a mathematical one at that), like 'eternity' and 'perfection'. I don't know who told you it was a number, but they were wrong. Chances are, you just misunderstood them like you seem to misunderstand everything else.You also don't understand the point of infinity as a number. It implies no limit regardless of direction or scale in and of itself just as 1 implies a singular proportion. Unless you have orthogonal or similar symmetry infinity begets itself when it projects onto itself and convergence is impossible to achieve. That makes it undefined but not unreal. There is a difference for all your hand waving at symbols and jargon.
This part meant nothing. Is math part of scientific testing? Yes. Is it part of the empirical phase of scientific testing? No. Again, you should look up what empiricism is, but then again, you've already demonstrated that you'll just ignore it if you don't agree with what a dictionary tells you.Your comment on numbers in and of themselves not being empirical just speaks to your box of thinking. Nevertheless when you project the proportions and directions of finite numbers and cartesian directions on to physical analogs they show repeatable results verifiable results. The same holds true for projecting infinity onto physical analogs ie vectors. Those two work repeatably ie are demonstrable empirically.
You sound like a kid who thought he knew everything in school but can't understand why he keeps failing the tests. No one is arguing against math, merely your understanding of it and how it applies to this thread. Euler and Reimann (and the other pioneers of calculus) never claimed infinity was a number, WHICH IS WHY THEY ING INVENTED LIMITS IN THE FIRST PLACE. You don't get that you aren't actually arguing from their standpoint; you're just saying stupid while citing their names.Quite frankly you sound like 18th century christian philosophers arguing the reality of Reimann and Euler's work. We know who won that debate because of the reality of things like mechanics (infinitesimal calculus), EM spectrum analysis (infinite convolutions), and thermodynamics (both). Newton et al put all your bull to bed. Inertia indeed.
Lol. What number comes directly before infinity? You'd think that if it was a number along the lines of regular old integers like '1' and '2' that you'd be able to answer that question.Infinity is a proven number with defined properties just like the numbers "1" and "2." Your number theory is at about the same level as your philosophy ie ty.
I have a category: adverb. If the noun is category, what is the adverbial suffix? Could it be categorical? Shall we do the same exercise in german?
What do adverb mean?
I see your linguistics is about the same place as your number theory and renaissance metaphysics. I am going to leave that right there as all I can say is your obstinance is idiotic. You don't eat your feedback, box boy.
And yes there are several proofs of the infinite and the infinitesimal. The sets of prime numbers and real numbers are by definition infinite and everything else flows from that. The first proof is to me probably the most poignant in Euclid who demonstrated it geometrically using lengths of rope and their divisibility. There are formal analogs with their variable definitions for box people such as yourself.
I said that it was like 1 and 2 in that it was defined and had properties. I did not say that the properties and definitions were the same or were other similarities. A little intuition points to it's inverse, zero, or for the mathematically rigorous, the empty set as for its properties.
Unending and void. Being and nothingness. Philosophy has moved on and so should you.
Anyway just to further my point, Euler's intuition was that infinity bisected the positive and negative in the same way that zero, it's inverse, did. That axis was proportional to the square root of a negative number.
I take it that in your precalculus you completely missed the point of complex algebra.
That symmetry in complex field theory is what intuited quantum field theory and signal theory and that is what it is. has an analog to the physical world. It's known as spin in quantum theory and phase in signals. That is what I 'believe' in.
It's freaky stuff that spits out sines, cosines and other geometric ratios. That is what string theory is all about with their multiple dimensions as they try and solve the quantum problem. They are checking for solutions that assume various geometries much like the bohr model and as an extension of VSPR theory.
But please tell me again that infinity is not 'real.' Are you on the level yet?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
