Reply With Quote
Well yes, like any normal individual.
So it's scary to think you won't be around, but not scary that you're not around. Self centered much?
Well yes, like any normal individual.
First off, 'categorical' is an adjective, not an adverb. 'Categorically' is the adverbial form. Secondly, the adjectival form of 'category' is 'categorized'. Thirdly, the term Kant used for 'Categorical Imperative' was "kategorischer Imperativ", which means "flat, absolute" in English. This could have been resolved easily by you looking it up instead of assuming you were right.
Modifies a verb, adjective or adverb.What do adverb mean?
You clearly don't know the first thing about linguistics if you didn't know what an adverb was.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.
God, you're dumb. A "proof" is not part of empiricism. Empiricism doesn't "prove" things; it collects evidence for beliefs. That's why scientific findings are tentative, but math is not.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.
It's not like numbers at all. That's the point.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.
That's just a line that means nothing. I understand those concepts just fine. Doesn't make them numbers.Unending and void. Being and nothingness. Philosophy has moved on and so should you.
Lol, his "intuition". The Greeks didn't even have a concept for zero back then. That came around when the Arabs brought in their number system.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.
Nothing you've said has been complex. It's just been irrelevant to your point.I take it that in your precalculus you completely missed the point of complex algebra.
An analog is not the same thing as empirical evidence. You used the Achilles paradox and an example for how infinity works in the real world. But that's just silly, seeing as the Achilles paradox is only a paradox BECAUSE it doesn't work in the real world.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.
Trying to bring string theory into this after messing up the universal issue.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.
Dude, I never said infinity wasn't "real". I said it wasn't a number. It's a concept. The reason why limits exists because infinity is not a number; you have to pretend like it is so that the math doesn't break down. I see you moved off that line of reasoning and moved on to others that don't support your point any better.But please tell me again that infinity is not 'real.' Are you on the level yet?
It means that two neural networks have achieved something of a synchronicity.
One can have two almost identical coffee cups, that are recognizable as being virtually the same, but they are still composed of different atoms, and down at a molecular level are quite different.
I am implying nothing of the sort. Once a book ceases to exist, it ceases to exist, period.
The individual atoms continue to exist, but they are not organized in such a way as to be a "book", by definition, just as the atoms in my body that were once part of Abraham Lincoln do not make me an ex-president.
Sound like we need a modern major general to settle this, with knowledge of things categorical.
You talked before of entry level knowledge and your googling is just about that. I didn't assume anything. I have read both a critique of pure reason and categories as well as slugging through Hume's description of 18th century physiology in setting up the foundations of modern skepticism. Try googling harder.
Categorized is the past present participle of the word categorize. It denotes an iden y using the form of to be in the romantic languages. 'He was categorized.' I am talking about the use of the suffix -al and what it means. How about you look that up box boy?
You were right that the usage was adjective but the point still remains. I have another example of the usage - methodical. According to you that has nothing to do with method. Prima facia it's stupid. Your unwillingness to surrender even obvious points belies your veracity.
I just gave you the rational construct of infinity via Euclid's proof and Euler's topological framework of the complex numbering system. It just like zero is a pole of said system and their are two linear skew orthogonal progressions one on proportion to the multiples of the singular proportion and the other to the square root of negative numbers. My math education didn't stop at infinitesimal calculus like yours.
Your problem is your stuck in the 19th century and waving your hands at notation that mathematicians use trying to shoehorn the number into newtonian or cartesian frameworks. As I said before, I am not talking about that. I am talking about the real form of infinity in the complex system. You are still stuck in your 18th century cartesian box and arguing the same things.
When you use the framework solutions like ((inf) - 1) - (((inf)-1)-1), it works to solve several infinite geometric progressions. Euler showed that. Laplace postulated that solutions could be described as sums of harmonics ie sin nx + cos nix in the complex system. Fourier formalized the solution and thermodynamics was born. Yay Napoleonic War!
EM radiation as a whole not just IR has been described using this frame work and it is the only solution for quantum phenomenon. It works on much larger scale because we use the concept in signal attenuation constantly. You basically are telling me that what I do for a living is irrational.
When you are ready to accept that there are an infinite wave harmonics at each and every moment of time and try to learn the real sense of proportions that are used to describe all phenomenon then let me know. It's obvious that you are still wrestling with your belief system and machismo and insist on behaving like a child or stupid man.
Yes but different atoms of the same mass and charge exhibit the same valence forms when put into the same relative position.
The coffee cup is a popular subject of topologists. Any partial sphere and circle will do. I am just saying that our perceptions of shapes have more profound meaning as opposed to our descriptions of motion. I am not necessarily conflating human and atomic behavior.
You just provided a proof of God in your own words. Unless you will consider your statement as being incorrect.
God is supposed to exist in everything. Since atoms can indeed exist as both part of something at one point, and part of something else at another does that not conclude that he can indeed exist in everything since a single atom from him is all it takes to exist within another object?
Last edited by xellos88330; 10-30-2014 at 07:33 PM.
The christian God is supposed to have set afire a burning bush to give directives to his head priest, resurrected the dead, changed the surface tension of water, violated all manner of conservation principles and all manner of bugaboo inconsistent with 'everything.'
If 'God' is 'everything' then 'God' is not the christain god or any other religions diety. If your god indeed does exist that means he exists outside of 'everything' and is an extra-dimensional being but that takes a big on the notion of monotheism so most christians reject it. The other solution is that he was a lie created for social control and they don't like that.
In light of complex field theory and modern physics I think the approach of universe = God is pretty much entirely put to bed.
I didn't say that the universe = God. I said an atom of God can exist in everything.
Cool then you are on the level. At the same time if you assume that God exists outside of everything then you admit that 'everything' is not a limiting factor to what cons utes an extradimensional being. There is nothing preventing other gods in your construct.
Didn't have to Google. Have a philosophy degree. Again, it doesn't matter that you claim to have read anything, seeing as you clearly have a problem with reading comprehension.
'Categorized' is a past participle, which is an adjective. 'Categorizing,' is the present participle, and it is also an adjective. Pick whichever one you want. They'd both fit better than 'categorical' would, because that already has another meaning. You sound like an idiot trying to go for general rules when you've already found out that this word has a specific definition that doesn't follow that rule. What's the adjectival form of 'box', "boxal"? Even so, the word Kant used himself is a term used commonly in German to mean "flat" or "unchanging". So your idea that Kant meant to use 'categorical' in a different way is just silly and demonstrably off-base.Categorized is the past present participle of the word categorize. It denotes an iden y using the form of to be in the romantic languages. 'He was categorized.' I am talking about the use of the suffix -al and what it means. How about you look that up box boy?
Again with your stupid argument about rules. Pick up a dictionary instead of trying to make silly arguments.You were right that the usage was adjective but the point still remains. I have another example of the usage - methodical. According to you that has nothing to do with method. Prima facia it's stupid. Your unwillingness to surrender even obvious points belies your veracity.
That's not an empirical example. It's like words don't actually mean anything to you.I just gave you the rational construct of infinity via Euclid's proof and Euler's topological framework of the complex numbering system. It just like zero is a pole of said system and their are two linear skew orthogonal progressions one on proportion to the multiples of the singular proportion and the other to the square root of negative numbers. My math education didn't stop at infinitesimal calculus like yours.
Again, I have no problem with math. I have a problem with your understanding of it, and how it applies to this discourse. Calling you stupid isn't the same thing as calling them stupid. You don't understand that infinity isn't a number; they did and made their systems of math accordingly.Your problem is your stuck in the 19th century and waving your hands at notation that mathematicians use trying to shoehorn the number into newtonian or cartesian frameworks. As I said before, I am not talking about that. I am talking about the real form of infinity in the complex system. You are still stuck in your 18th century cartesian box and arguing the same things.
None of those are empirical examples.When you use the framework solutions like ((inf) - 1) - (((inf)-1)-1), it works to solve several infinite geometric progressions. Euler showed that. Laplace postulated that solutions could be described as sums of harmonics ie sin nx + cos nix in the complex system. Fourier formalized the solution and thermodynamics was born. Yay Napoleonic War!
I don't give a what you do for a living. What you're doing here is idiotic. The math that uses infinity isn't irrational -- that doesn't make sense, since math can't be irrational. It can only be right or wrong.EM radiation as a whole not just IR has been described using this frame work and it is the only solution for quantum phenomenon. It works on much larger scale because we use the concept in signal attenuation constantly. You basically are telling me that what I do for a living is irrational.
So says the guy who can't read, and who can't understand the difference between "not a number" and "fake". I don't reject math at all. I just know you're too dumb or stubborn to actually understand it. If you don't even believe a dictionary when it tells you the word you're using doesn't mean what you think it means, there's clearly something wrong with your ability to reason.When you are ready to accept that there are an infinite wave harmonics at each and every moment of time and try to learn the real sense of proportions that are used to describe all phenomenon then let me know. It's obvious that you are still wrestling with your belief system and machismo and insist on behaving like a child or stupid man.
You sure have to limit your scope to try and make sense of things. Your mind is very inflexible. Likely why you had to settle for a liberal arts degree.
You do not understand the difference of a participle indicating an action being done on something and how a noun is turned into a general descriptor. -y is a similar suffix to -al and -ic. You argument to this point has morphed into its a past participle of the word category as opposed to it having nothing at all to do with it. Like I said, you don't eat your feedback.
I'll help because you are too determined to be ignorant to look it up on your own.
http://teacher.scholastic.com/readin...s_suffixes.pdf
Lookee there all -al -ic and -y mean "characterized by" the root noun. The double regression in the usage is to be noted but it still is what it is. You would do better constructing a counter argument as opposed to your shrill whines of no. Wait last time you defined categorical as "true regardless of cir stance" which I noted was the same as universal truth and what Aristotle was getting at with his virtue too. You ignore most of my constructs.
If you have a philosophy degree that is pretty ing sad. Sounds like UTSA engineering. I mean never mind that the word is in the name. Both Aristotle and Kant approached the notion of the categorical with the idea of ideal virtue as the goal and used that as a central premise that the imperative drew from. Different virtue and conclusion but the same approach: categorical. You wasted your parents money with a ty liberal arts degree.
I never said topology was inherently empirical. OTOH, I gave you the logical, rational, and topological construct of the complex numbering system that has been demonstrated empirically. In it inf is a discrete case just like zero and bisects the positive and negative of the i-axis. This construct is what LaPlace postulated his harmonics of sines and cosines and Fourier formalized the description of heat transfer ie thermodynamics.
Is thermodynamics an empirically proven principle? Yes. Does it use Euler's complex plane with infinity as a discrete case? Yes.
Is quantum field theory and empirically proven principle? Yes. Does it use Euler's complex plane with infinity as a discrete case? Yes.
Does the cartesian or linear approach work with infinity described in terms of limits in either case? No.
In short the model of infinity I describe as a discrete case centering the i-axis and bi-axial symmetry works for all cases. Your model of it as the outer limit does not stand up to reality. Deal with it just like all the other classical mechanists.
Aquinas was wrong. Deal with that too. You are neither intellectually brave nor intellectually honest.
Bro, I have three degrees.
Just an empty statement. You assumed a 'categorical imperative' was a mandate to put things into categories. But the term for that would be "categorizing imperative", since you're not trying to modify "category" but instead "put things into categories (categorize)". Again, a dictionary would really help you out here, but you don't believe in those.You do not understand the difference of a participle indicating an action being done on something and how a noun is turned into a general descriptor. -y is a similar suffix to -al and -ic. You argument to this point has morphed into its a past participle of the word category as opposed to it having nothing at all to do with it. Like I said, you don't eat your feedback.
Again, stupid. You don't have to try to apply general rules to this case, since you can simply look up the word in a dictionary. 'Categorical' has a meaning that's not "of categories". No amount of stupidity from you will change that.I'll help because you are too determined to be ignorant to look it up on your own.
http://teacher.scholastic.com/readin...s_suffixes.pdf
Lookee there all -al -ic and -y mean "characterized by" the root noun. The double regression in the usage is to be noted but it still is what it is. You would do better constructing a counter argument as opposed to your shrill whines of no.
Yes, 'categorical' is an antonym for 'hypothetical'. It means absolute, unchanging. In German, it's also used to mean 'flat'. You did note that it talked about "universal truth" and all that. My response to that was, 'yes, and that's why no one cares about categorical imperatives anymore'. That's what Nietzsche was arguing against, not that Kant was putting things into boxes. Again, you don't read well, which is why you can't understand that.Wait last time you defined categorical as "true regardless of cir stance" which I noted was the same as universal truth and what Aristotle was getting at with his virtue too. You ignore most of my constructs.
Phil was my final degree. I added it because I thought it was fun and had the courses open my last two semesters. And before you try to accuse me of backtracking, there's plenty of evidence on ST of me saying what my degrees were in. I imagine you struggled in school so much that you didn't even minor, since you were too busy arguing with the textbooks.If you have a philosophy degree that is pretty ing sad. Sounds like UTSA engineering. I mean never mind that the word is in the name. Both Aristotle and Kant approached the notion of the categorical with the idea of ideal virtue as the goal and used that as a central premise that the imperative drew from. Different virtue and conclusion but the same approach: categorical. You wasted your parents money with a ty liberal arts degree.
Anyway, your "It's in the name," argument is bad. We had dictionaries so that people don't have to trust their judgment on things like this.
No, you didn't. You gave me examples of theories describing real things that used the concept of infinity. Again, saying, "This model predicts infinity," is NOT an empirical statement.I never said topology was inherently empirical. OTOH, I gave you the logical, rational, and topological construct of the complex numbering system that has been demonstrated empirically. In it inf is a discrete case just like zero and bisects the positive and negative of the i-axis. This construct is what LaPlace postulated his harmonics of sines and cosines and Fourier formalized the description of heat transfer ie thermodynamics.
No. Thermodynamics isn't empirical. Not the way you're asserting it is. It gets supported by empirical evidence, but its relationships are mathematical.Is thermodynamics an empirically proven principle? Yes. Does it use Euler's complex plane with infinity as a discrete case? Yes.
No. Again, "empirically proven" is a nonsense term. Empiricism doesn't prove things; it provides evidence to support beliefs.Is quantum field theory and empirically proven principle? Yes. Does it use Euler's complex plane with infinity as a discrete case? Yes.
Yes. It's like you have no concept of how limits work and why they exist.Does the cartesian or linear approach work with infinity described in terms of limits in either case? No.
Yes, deal with it like they did: by using limits. Again, you don't seem to get that nothing you've said suggests infinity is a number. You've only demonstrated that math deals with it. No one's objected to that argument. Did you look up this issue at all? You apparently research counter arguments in advance, yet you don't seem able to do that with your constructive.In short the model of infinity I describe as a discrete case centering the i-axis and bi-axial symmetry works for all cases. Your model of it as the outer limit does not stand up to reality. Deal with it just like all the other classical mechanists.
I don't even know what he said. Yes, I could look that up right now. But that's not the point. You have this at ude that you're right because you believe that your view is in line with the view of people who are smarter than you. Besides you being wrong in understanding what those people are saying, you're hanging out in Fallacy City by trying to hide behind other people's minds. You clearly don't do any research into your ideas, and you're just as clearly resistant to the idea of doing so. This is why you have such a terrible constructive and can't seem to sustain a decent discourse with anyone. I really don't know how you function in this world, you seem so far out of touch. That's not me insulting you; it's my honest evaluation after seeing all of the posts you've made in this thread to anyone.Aquinas was wrong. Deal with that too. You are neither intellectually brave nor intellectually honest.
It's called this is not the first time I have had any of these discussions and you are really starting to bore me.
Just a run down. Kant's a Critique on Pure Reason was not inspired by Aristotle's Categories yet both talked of virtue and categories. Thermodynamics is not empirical science. Quantum field theory is not empirical science. And complex field theory and topology is not math.
I am not surprised you cannot figure how I function given the above takes.
Anyway, I am now resorting to base trolling so I am done. If you don't want to believe that infinity is a discrete point in a topological construct that explains observable phenomenon then don't. All we are going to do is go in circles and I have made my point.
Nighty night.
What's called that?
It means two things don't overlap. What the does that have to do with anything?
No. I have a evolutionary/ecological biology degree and a cog-sci/linguistics degree. Again, that's already established on ST.
So says the guy who can't understand that 'categorical' doesn't mean what he thinks it means.
Still can't understand anyone else, hence you relying on stupid rules. Said nothing about Kant's inspiration, but it's hilarious that you bring up Aristotle, since the Greek translation for 'categorical' still means "absolute and unchanging". That term's literally meant what the dictionary says it's meant for thousands of years.Just a run down. Kant's a Critique on Pure Reason was not inspired by Aristotle's Categories yet both talked of virtue and categories. Thermodynamics is not empirical science. Quantum field theory is not empirical science. And complex field theory and topology is not math.
I agree. You can't understand anything, as evidenced by your poor understanding of my view.I am not surprised you cannot figure how I function given the above takes.
I've honestly been hoping that you've been doing that from jump street, because you were stupid straight out of the box (pun, right?).Anyway, I am now resorting to base trolling so I am done. If you don't want to believe that infinity is a discrete point in a topological construct that explains observable phenomenon then don't. All we are going to do is go in circles and I have made my point.
damn, that was brutal. fuzzy had to try to prove the dictionary definition of a word was wrong in order to not look stupid, even though that makes him look more stupid
cat·e·gor·i·cal
adjective \ˌka-tə-ˈgȯr-i-kəl, -ˈgär-\
: said in a very strong, clear, and definite way
Full Definition of CATEGORICAL
1
: absolute, unqualified <a categorical denial>
2
a : of, relating to, or cons uting a category
b : involving, according with, or considered with respect to specific categories
But by all means circle jerk guys. I have to do.
Oh, good. You've finally picked up a dictionary. In case you're wondering, I've known that definition this whole time. It's actually not used very often, and isn't even on some sites. But there are two instances when it means what you think it means. The first is when describing data (categorical data is data divided into categories), the second is categorical perception (seeing things in categories instead of on a continuum). However, you never meant it in that context, since you were talking about the CI, which not only has hundreds of years of analysis to tell us what way they were using it, but directly translates into the other definition.
Why do you mean saying "what do..."? It's one term, which I defined when you first asked. You still haven't explained why the you keep using that as a dig.
Lol, going from, "You're so pathetic with that philosophy degree", to "You don't actually have one." Also hilarious that you think all philosophy degrees are the same. Am I supposed to know everything about quantum physics because I have a biology degree?
Didn't edit your posts at all.
Kant's use is a lot older than that, first off. Secondly, 'categorical' has meant "absolute" for thousands of years (in its translations). You should have seen that when you were reading in the dictionary. Instead you're trying to rep its sub-definition just so you don't look stupid. That would be a decent argument had you not failed to make it until now.
I don't even think you know what that means. 'Categorical' hasn't changed its meaning, but that doesn't mean other words haven't. You're just mad that you didn't know the definition. Now, you're arguing against it so you don't look dumb.
Meaning that I am not just saying that to try to cover up my tracks in this thread. I could be lying about my degrees (I'm not, but who cares?), but I would have been lying a long time before talking to you.
So says the guy who's admitted to preparing for Internet arguments and to try to follow me around if I don't respond to you fast enough. You clearly have a lot of time on your hands and will be back to make another stupid post in the middle of the day. But seeing as you just now actually clicked on the Google link to see 'categorical' in more detail, you definitely seem too busy to learn anything.But by all means circle jerk guys. I have to do.
Last edited by Chinook; 10-31-2014 at 09:00 AM.
This guy seems to have some pretty compelling stuff. I understand most of you will TLDW it, but there are some interesting tidbits that could be hard to refute as far as his argument on creationism.
Hugh Ross is making up his own translation of Genesis, fwiw, which is what Christians nowadays are being forced to do to explain evolution and the age of the universe.
But what interesting tidbit are you specifically referring too?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
