This has always bugged me (eternal, finite universe, plenum)

Metaphysics and Epistemology
41

>> find time as a method of recognition or establishing a unit of motion with which to measure other units of motion quite satisfactory.>>>

 

You could not do the math or either of the two relitivities with this notion of time.

The theory of relativity (both general and special) states that all measurements of time and space are relative- specifically relative to the speed of whoever is measuring.  A “measure of motion” is a speed!

So for your information, not only was Dream Weaver’s  statement compatible with the relativistic conception of time; it was actually synonymous!

 

I won’t give you any rhetorical questions because that would be deceptive.  I’m simply indicating, for the sake of anyone else who reads this, not to take you seriously- because you don’t, either.

 

 

My explicit philosophical position is the orthox one in this regard: A+A is logic, not epistemology. It’s statement cannot justify truth because everyone feel that their own A’s equal real A’s.

This final response is a negation of objective truth, on the basis of disagreement.  This means that something can only be true if everyone agrees that it’s true.  This means that in Frank’s own mind, not only does he substitute the opinions of other people as his own- he considers that the proper method of coming to any sort of conclusion (because he didn’t hesitate to mention it, explicitly and with moral authority).

 

As for the bounce-back, they already have, from the time of the universe’s creation. With hearing devices that are sufficiently sensitive, we can listen to the primordal echo of the big bang…

And Frank could not possibly have missed so much of the content he was responding to here, if he had anywhere near the scientific familiarity which he pretends to.  It is worth noting that no matter how blatant or numerous his factual errors, he has yet to drop the grandiosity.

It is worth noting that because it lends further insight into the epistemology he, himself, confessed to holding.  He places higher importance on tones and impressions than whatever he happens to actually say.

 

3.) Did you just come here to tell visitors of this forum your explicit orthodox philosophic position?

Doubtful.  It’s more likely that he simply wants to express that he has one (since he really couldn’t care less which).

After all, the only title which carries more authority than “scientist” is “philosopher”. 

. . . . .

 

So Frank, if you feel inclined to answer anything, please respond to this:

I will disagree with anything else you have to say.  And since I would disagree with it, nothing you could say could possibly be true.

 

How would you respond to that?

. . . . .

 

To everyone else who reads this: 

I’m sorry for derailing this thread so completely; this will be its final off-topic post from me.  I simply wanted to say it once because the pretense of “science” was driving me insane.

42

To everyone else who reads this: 

I’m sorry for derailing this thread so completely; this will be its final off-topic post from me.  I simply wanted to say it once because the pretense of “science” was driving me insane.

The allegation of empty rhetoric from practitioner, none the less.

 

The point density inquiry probes into a more subtle equivocation error. When measuring anything, it is important to keep in mind what is being measured, and keep the unit in mind while determining the magnitude.

abott1776, about half way down this link is a section on Space, Void and Vacuum.

It is written by Michael Miller, dubbed as an Objectivist filosopher.

 

You may find some of his commentary fruitful to ‘chew on’.

And this reference was much clearer to me than an assertion about Cantor’s ideas regarding actual infinities shed on the topic.

1 Like
43

The theory of relativity (both general and special) states that all measurements of time and space are relative- specifically relative to the speed of whoever is measuring.  A “measure of motion” is a speed!

So for your information, not only was Dream Weaver’s  statement compatible with the relativistic conception of time; it was actually synonymous!

 

I won’t give you any rhetorical questions because that would be deceptive.  I’m simply indicating, for the sake of anyone else who reads this, not to take you seriously- because you don’t, either.

 

This final response is a negation of objective truth, on the basis of disagreement.  This means that something can only be true if everyone agrees that it’s true.  This means that in Frank’s own mind, not only does he substitute the opinions of other people as his own- he considers that the proper method of coming to any sort of conclusion (because he didn’t hesitate to mention it, explicitly and with moral authority).

 

And Frank could not possibly have missed so much of the content he was responding to here, if he had anywhere near the scientific familiarity which he pretends to.  It is worth noting that no matter how blatant or numerous his factual errors, he has yet to drop the grandiosity.

It is worth noting that because it lends further insight into the epistemology he, himself, confessed to holding.  He places higher importance on tones and impressions than whatever he happens to actually say.

 

Doubtful.  It’s more likely that he simply wants to express that he has one (since he really couldn’t care less which).

After all, the only title which carries more authority than “scientist” is “philosopher”. 

. . . . .

 

So Frank, if you feel inclined to answer anything, please respond to this:

I will disagree with anything else you have to say.  And since I would disagree with it, nothing you could say could possibly be true.

 

How would you respond to that?

. . . . .

 

To everyone else who reads this: 

I’m sorry for derailing this thread so completely; this will be its final off-topic post from me.  I simply wanted to say it once because the pretense of “science” was driving me insane.

First, there are two relativities–not ‘a’ theory with two parts.

 

Special says that the Lorentz contraction is present as a third coefficient in all Newtonians. 

 

General calculates how gravity bends light.As the velocity of light serves as a standard © by which both time and distance can be measured, gravity ‘reletivizes’ this measurement.

 

Now i’ll be happy to go into greater detail, but my basic point is that before you ‘do’ philosoophy, you need to grasp the science.

 

* The two relativities are first of all…equations. If you don’t understand the equations, all further commentary is useless.

 

* ‘Space’ isn’t empty

 

* The universe, while expanding, has finite boundaries, or an ‘edge’. Weyl geodesics explains how gravity works in these far reaches, absent of any mass.

 

* In sum, there is not an ‘Objectivist’ physics, rather objectivist insights as to what physics means. Fierts, know the physics, Or as Kant said, ‘Dare to know’.

 

FH

 

 

 

FH