My Cosmic Heirarchy: q3
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-08-2015, 07:28 PM (This post was last modified: 26-08-2015 07:32 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: My Cosmic Heirarchy: q3
You literally clipped out every part of my argument except the part I AGREED with you about, namely, the use of "uni-" as a prefix that means "one".

My entire point was about your shifting of the actual WORD, not the PREFIX.

The WORD was "verse", and you shifted, then edited out the parts of my post that demonstrate how you shifted it.

Your entire argument in #14, which YES I DID READ AND SAID THAT I READ, is based on that false etymological shift.

I am literally sitting here slack-jawed at how dishonest you just were, there.

You used "glue sniffers" again AND you implied that we're not getting what you say because we are not smart enough. This is your last warning.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
26-08-2015, 07:44 PM
RE: My Cosmic Heirarchy: q3
Quote:76---You literally clipped out every part of my argument except the part I AGREED with you about, namely, the use of "uni-" as a prefix that means "one".

Yeah because they were repeated irrelvancies that only pertained to your stuck-in-your-own-head trip and not my definitions.

And here in this reply you have basiclly clipped out much more than I did by not addressing my comments as stated. That is par for the course of all the Non-Thinking Atheist glue sniffers here.

You are perhaps the least abusive.

Quote:My entire point was about your shifting of the actual WORD, not the PREFIX.

Your entire point was not to address my definitions of the word Universe.

And you specifically and repeatedly made false claims that I was changing the word prefix of the word Universe and the word itself to anther word.

If you want to debate that then address my comments as stated. You do not because you have no rational, logical common sense comments that actually invalitate my comments as stated.

The WORD was "verse", and you shifted, then edited out the parts of my post that demonstrate how you shifted it.

I used the word Universe with changes to its appearenc eto differrentiate two definitions that I clearly stated, elaborated upon. You refused to address them and even stated so, so Get over dude.

Quote:Your entire argument in #14, which YES I DID READ AND SAID THAT I READ, is based on that false etymological shift.

When you want to have a rational, logical common sense conversation, you need to start by addressing my specific statements.

Start with 'My Cosmic Hieirarchy as you refuse to address my definitions of Universe and my given changes in appearnec.

This because you have nothing valid to offer us here at Non-Thinking Atheist in those specific regards.

YOu need to get of the glue dude and make attempt to get of your stuck-in-your-own-head condition when having conversations with others, otherwise your just talking to yourself, not to others and certainly not to me or my comments as stated.

Now why is no one here at Non-Thinking Atheist can grasp this combination of words My Cosmic Hierarchy?...oh yeah the glue vapors....Hobo

Heart q3 Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2015, 07:45 PM
RE: My Cosmic Heirarchy: q3
In other words, before I can even begin to address your assertions about gravity vs gods, we have to address the etymological errors you made on the use of the word universe, and why U represents anything. I was trying to guess that you were using an old (and as far as I am aware) no longer used term from Logic shorthand, but apparently not.

We cannot leap from a platform that is based upon a definitional error and expect to land on our target, no matter how logically we discuss this.

All I read in #14 is some gibberish without explanation. I had hoped that by "starting from scratch", we could establish useful definitions and work from there, but you seem inclined to prefer to insult your audience, and I'm having none of that.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
26-08-2015, 07:46 PM
RE: My Cosmic Heirarchy: q3
Oh wow, while I was typing you did it AGAIN.

I warned you. You're fair game, now.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
26-08-2015, 08:17 PM
RE: My Cosmic Heirarchy: q3
(26-08-2015 07:46 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Oh wow, while I was typing you did it AGAIN.

I warned you. You're fair game, now.

[Image: xSay-What-Again-I-Dare-You-300x233.jpg.p...4p7mzo.jpg]

(22-08-2015 07:30 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  It is by will alone I set my brows in motion it is by the conditioner of avocado that the brows acquire volume the skin acquires spots the spots become a warning. It is by will alone I set my brows in motion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Octapulse's post
26-08-2015, 08:26 PM
RE: My Cosmic Heirarchy: q3
Before anyone else reads this post, I want to make it clear that I tried everything I could to get this guy to start from a better place of reference to concepts and basic definitions before I lit this post up. I have done everything in my power to be kind and fair, and this guy specifically defied my request to stop using certain phrases that insulted both the intelligence and honesty of people in this forum, myself included. He is now, in my opinion, fair game, so I am dispensing with the niceties.

(24-08-2015 06:57 AM)qqq Wrote:  To keep things simple, all of my clarifications may be considered as speculations, although some of the content is commonly accepted phenomena of Universe.

Quote:q^3--Cosmic Heirarchy: i.e. the overall top to bottom, generalized outline/list.


First two words have existed in English dictionaries for some years and here are links to web definitions to aid any considerate cosmic thinkers.

Cosmic

heirarchy

We know what cosmic and hierarchy mean, jackass. Anyone with an eight grade education has a solid grasp of those terms.

(24-08-2015 06:57 AM)qqq Wrote:  "top to bottom" means we begin with the greatest whole concepts/scenario and list subacatagorical those parts/aspsects found with in the greatest whole, in descending order.

For those who did not have proper education with school books, that, have and heirarchal outline for all chapters in the first few pages, I would have those newbies to Earth, think of drop-menus and sub-menu's used by your computers operating system, browser or any number of applications used on a computer.

Wow, really? Parsing through your atrocious grammatical errors in the above, I managed to glean two things: 1) you think we cannot grasp what you meant by hierarchy even after you posted the dictionary definition, and 2) you ignore that we speak of "nested hierarchies" in our posts on evolution, found all over this forum, on an almost daily basis, meaning you didn't bother to even read what we might or might not commonly know before you slid in a passive-aggressive slur at our intelligence and education levels. Nice.

(24-08-2015 06:57 AM)qqq Wrote:  Universe = one verse as found in many dictionaries is limited in its view/scope{ imho } i.e. I believe we need a word that is more comprehensively broader in scale of consideration.

So the term universe in meaning "everything in one" isn't quite big enough for you, eh? That's... interesting.

Go on...

(24-08-2015 06:57 AM)qqq Wrote:  By placing in quotes, bold and italicizing the letter U "U"niverse I distingush that word from the word Universe and universe{s}, that follow.

"U"niverse is most omni-comprehensive concept or scenario i.e. it is inclusive of #1, 2, 3, 4 in my heirarchy/outline and any sub-catagories thereof.

What specifically sperates "U"niverse definition from other Universe or universe{s} definitions is it includes begins with inclusion of 1} meta{beyond}physical-1 catagory, and 2} meta{beyond{physical-2, the macro-infinite non-occupied space that exists beyond our finite occupied space Universe.

You made that up. The word for what you've gone to all the trouble to define, there, is "universe". No quotes, no colors. Just what the word means and how it is used in everyday (human) communication. If you wish to establish subsets of the universe, or discuss properties it holds, you still need not establish this weird definition.

Furthermore, if you have read any major books on physics, they cover the concepts of the various dimensional inclusions beyond what is thought of as "standard" three (or four, if we include gravitational space-time as a dimension, which we do under the Theory of General Relativity), and again you can simply use words that already exist rather than blinding our eyes with this word-salad.

As to the "meta" parts, there is no evidence that the dimensional space we know about contains any additional elements that might be called "metaphysical", another common-use word you could have employed, as you do in the following paragraph, instead of driving us crazy with this crap, and to which you could have reverted before trying to insist we use only your version.

(24-08-2015 06:57 AM)qqq Wrote:  Any all italics I use, are for the most part, intended to be concepts associated with the concept of metaphyscial-1 existence and that is #1) in my cosmic heirarchy. If some need further clarification please address a specific word or comment you do not understand and i will attempt further clarification.

Universe = occupied space as odd-bird-out gravity and physical/energy

For most part-- 5 years --I use blue for gravity or that which is associated with gravity. In recent months Ive developed new views on gravity so I the reader may see the distinction of outer/positive shaped gravity as distinct form inner/negative shaped gravity

"Odd-bird out" gravity? What in the holy fuck? This is word salad. There is no such thing as "outer" and "inner" gravity; there are terms to describe the physical forces at work in the universe (including gravity), and none of them involve variations on the term gravity, particularly in light of our better understanding of the origin of this force and its relation to the rest of the subatomic particles (and thus its ability to interact with space-time) following the discovery of the Higgs Boson.

(24-08-2015 06:57 AM)qqq Wrote:  "verse" is in red is the physical/energy part of the word Universe and our finite, occupied space Universe.

So I'm making a distinction between odd-bird-out gravity and physical/energy See #3) and #4) in heirarchy.

Another way I some times like to present this is as Universe/God{ ess }

"universe{s} is small cap 'u' to make the distinction of;

1} multi-verse concepts/scenarios that have the Universe being composed of many subcatagorical universes, however, any wholistic, finite set of them are connected mininmally by gravity ergo still one verse, Universe.

2} any concepts of more localize uses of the word universe ex our personal sphere of influence may be intended as our personal universe of direct associations.

3) others uses of word universe Ive not yet considered or forgot.

That makes no sense, as there is no reason whatsoever to presuppose (in advance of an argument, especially) that there is some distinction between the mass-energy equations and "our finite, occupied space", or personal "universes" in the colloquial sense of the metaphoric use of the term.

(24-08-2015 06:57 AM)qqq Wrote:  I-verse = metaphysical-1 mind/intellect concept of I-ness i.e. a part of us that does not occupy space, as does the biological body/verse and its 6 senses. Green I associate with biological

Word salad. None of these terms are real things distinct from the general laws of the universe decribed above. Not one. You are making shit up and expecting us to just swallow it. If you have solid evidence that there is such a thing as "a part of us that does not occupy physical space" (or "I-ness"), you need to stop talking to us right now and go run out and publish so you can collect your Nobel in Physics!

(24-08-2015 06:57 AM)qqq Wrote:  you-verse is that which we visually and conceptually have concept of other, that is distinct from I-verse.

we-verse is a concept of multiverse sets of I-ness, that include our personal I-verse.

them-verse is 2ndary set of distinction from we and them. I borrowed these last three concepts from Bucky Fullers book. Synergetics-1 & 2.

q3

Yyyyeeeeeeeeeahhhh, Buckminster Fuller's books were Deepak Chopra-levels of woo, in many places, and especially in the parts where he tried to define universe as you are, by adding concepts based on falsely-inserted etymologies that incorporate extra meanings that are not there. An example:

"...But never will anyone disprove my working hypothesis because it will take experimental proof to satisfy me, and the experiment will always be part of the experience of my definition, ergo included. This gives me great power because my definition of Universe includes not only the physical but also the metaphysical experiences of Universe, which the physicists thought they had to exclude from their more limited definition of the finite physical portion of Universe. The metaphysical embraces all the weightless experiences of thought, including all the mathematics and the organization of data regarding all the physical experiments, science itself being metaphysical. "

This is nonsense. It is woo. And much of it is word salad. Before I even start to dive into woo that deep, we need to start with the basics, a real definition of universe that does not include the woo, and does not start (as you do) with a preset derivation of universe into a myriad of copies of itself to represent concepts we already have other words for and are not based on the wrong use of the terms.

You are a schmuck, and like all schmucks that come here with their woo and word salads, you don't want to properly define your terms unless we can stick to nebulous concepts that don't force you to stand on ground that can be nailed down, because you instinctively know that we will tear you to shreds on that ground. We're sick to death of your kind, and though we try to be nice to each person and give them a chance to learn and communicate like a rational THINKING person, it usually does not take long for a Woo-ist to start accusing us of being the irrational ones because we won't adopt their woo.

You whine and moan and accuse us of being dishonest, but we're trying to start from "home plate" (not your weird platform off in the stadium left of left field) before beginning a rational discussion. You have proved that you cannot be fair or rational, and have tried to demand that we conform to your will in how a debate should be operated.

Wrong. You lose. Get the fuck out of here, you dipshit, I don't want to be contaminated with the wooist lunacy that will steal my IQ points and run away laughing about, as Bucky put it, "the regenerative interactions of all otherness and me." Dogdamn, what fucking idiotic woo that is.

(Source for my quotations of Bucky: http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetic...tml#306.00)

You pompous and unintelligible ass. You have contaminated this board long enough with your dipshittery. Now go. Scat. Shoo!

[Image: th?id=JN.5GdDelN1r%2fljbbLv4laVlA&am...;amp;h=300]

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
26-08-2015, 08:42 PM
RE: My Cosmic Heirarchy: q3
(26-08-2015 07:19 PM)qqq Wrote:  Do you seriously think I have never googled Universe?

Your posts here indicate that you have not.

(26-08-2015 07:19 PM)qqq Wrote:  Universe = eternally existent, finite, occupied space as odd-bird-out gravity and physical/energy and you have not addressed that statement.

It is not coherent enough to address.

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that you are speaking English. And even assuming that your definition of "universe" is valid, it isn't even half of what is wrong with your "philosophy".

(26-08-2015 07:19 PM)qqq Wrote:  Universe = motion, gravity, physical/ernergy etc....and these are the physiial expressions of verse, to turn over, to inter-transform eternally.

This is word salad.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
26-08-2015, 09:44 PM
RE: My Cosmic Heirarchy: q3
(26-08-2015 08:26 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Before anyone else reads this post, I want to make it clear that I tried everything I could to get this guy to start from a better place of reference to concepts and basic definitions before I lit this post up. I have done everything in my power to be kind and fair, and this guy specifically defied my request to stop using certain phrases that insulted both the intelligence and honesty of people in this forum, myself included. He is now, in my opinion, fair game, so I am dispensing with the niceties.

(24-08-2015 06:57 AM)qqq Wrote:  To keep things simple, all of my clarifications may be considered as speculations, although some of the content is commonly accepted phenomena of Universe.



First two words have existed in English dictionaries for some years and here are links to web definitions to aid any considerate cosmic thinkers.

Cosmic

heirarchy

We know what cosmic and hierarchy mean, jackass. Anyone with an eight grade education has a solid grasp of those terms.

(24-08-2015 06:57 AM)qqq Wrote:  "top to bottom" means we begin with the greatest whole concepts/scenario and list subacatagorical those parts/aspsects found with in the greatest whole, in descending order.

For those who did not have proper education with school books, that, have and heirarchal outline for all chapters in the first few pages, I would have those newbies to Earth, think of drop-menus and sub-menu's used by your computers operating system, browser or any number of applications used on a computer.

Wow, really? Parsing through your atrocious grammatical errors in the above, I managed to glean two things: 1) you think we cannot grasp what you meant by hierarchy even after you posted the dictionary definition, and 2) you ignore that we speak of "nested hierarchies" in our posts on evolution, found all over this forum, on an almost daily basis, meaning you didn't bother to even read what we might or might not commonly know before you slid in a passive-aggressive slur at our intelligence and education levels. Nice.

(24-08-2015 06:57 AM)qqq Wrote:  Universe = one verse as found in many dictionaries is limited in its view/scope{ imho } i.e. I believe we need a word that is more comprehensively broader in scale of consideration.

So the term universe in meaning "everything in one" isn't quite big enough for you, eh? That's... interesting.

Go on...

(24-08-2015 06:57 AM)qqq Wrote:  By placing in quotes, bold and italicizing the letter U "U"niverse I distingush that word from the word Universe and universe{s}, that follow.

"U"niverse is most omni-comprehensive concept or scenario i.e. it is inclusive of #1, 2, 3, 4 in my heirarchy/outline and any sub-catagories thereof.

What specifically sperates "U"niverse definition from other Universe or universe{s} definitions is it includes begins with inclusion of 1} meta{beyond}physical-1 catagory, and 2} meta{beyond{physical-2, the macro-infinite non-occupied space that exists beyond our finite occupied space Universe.

You made that up. The word for what you've gone to all the trouble to define, there, is "universe". No quotes, no colors. Just what the word means and how it is used in everyday (human) communication. If you wish to establish subsets of the universe, or discuss properties it holds, you still need not establish this weird definition.

Furthermore, if you have read any major books on physics, they cover the concepts of the various dimensional inclusions beyond what is thought of as "standard" three (or four, if we include gravitational space-time as a dimension, which we do under the Theory of General Relativity), and again you can simply use words that already exist rather than blinding our eyes with this word-salad.

As to the "meta" parts, there is no evidence that the dimensional space we know about contains any additional elements that might be called "metaphysical", another common-use word you could have employed, as you do in the following paragraph, instead of driving us crazy with this crap, and to which you could have reverted before trying to insist we use only your version.

(24-08-2015 06:57 AM)qqq Wrote:  Any all italics I use, are for the most part, intended to be concepts associated with the concept of metaphyscial-1 existence and that is #1) in my cosmic heirarchy. If some need further clarification please address a specific word or comment you do not understand and i will attempt further clarification.

Universe = occupied space as odd-bird-out gravity and physical/energy

For most part-- 5 years --I use blue for gravity or that which is associated with gravity. In recent months Ive developed new views on gravity so I the reader may see the distinction of outer/positive shaped gravity as distinct form inner/negative shaped gravity

"Odd-bird out" gravity? What in the holy fuck? This is word salad. There is no such thing as "outer" and "inner" gravity; there are terms to describe the physical forces at work in the universe (including gravity), and none of them involve variations on the term gravity, particularly in light of our better understanding of the origin of this force and its relation to the rest of the subatomic particles (and thus its ability to interact with space-time) following the discovery of the Higgs Boson.

(24-08-2015 06:57 AM)qqq Wrote:  "verse" is in red is the physical/energy part of the word Universe and our finite, occupied space Universe.

So I'm making a distinction between odd-bird-out gravity and physical/energy See #3) and #4) in heirarchy.

Another way I some times like to present this is as Universe/God{ ess }

"universe{s} is small cap 'u' to make the distinction of;

1} multi-verse concepts/scenarios that have the Universe being composed of many subcatagorical universes, however, any wholistic, finite set of them are connected mininmally by gravity ergo still one verse, Universe.

2} any concepts of more localize uses of the word universe ex our personal sphere of influence may be intended as our personal universe of direct associations.

3) others uses of word universe Ive not yet considered or forgot.

That makes no sense, as there is no reason whatsoever to presuppose (in advance of an argument, especially) that there is some distinction between the mass-energy equations and "our finite, occupied space", or personal "universes" in the colloquial sense of the metaphoric use of the term.

(24-08-2015 06:57 AM)qqq Wrote:  I-verse = metaphysical-1 mind/intellect concept of I-ness i.e. a part of us that does not occupy space, as does the biological body/verse and its 6 senses. Green I associate with biological

Word salad. None of these terms are real things distinct from the general laws of the universe decribed above. Not one. You are making shit up and expecting us to just swallow it. If you have solid evidence that there is such a thing as "a part of us that does not occupy physical space" (or "I-ness"), you need to stop talking to us right now and go run out and publish so you can collect your Nobel in Physics!

(24-08-2015 06:57 AM)qqq Wrote:  you-verse is that which we visually and conceptually have concept of other, that is distinct from I-verse.

we-verse is a concept of multiverse sets of I-ness, that include our personal I-verse.

them-verse is 2ndary set of distinction from we and them. I borrowed these last three concepts from Bucky Fullers book. Synergetics-1 & 2.

q3

Yyyyeeeeeeeeeahhhh, Buckminster Fuller's books were Deepak Chopra-levels of woo, in many places, and especially in the parts where he tried to define universe as you are, by adding concepts based on falsely-inserted etymologies that incorporate extra meanings that are not there. An example:

"...But never will anyone disprove my working hypothesis because it will take experimental proof to satisfy me, and the experiment will always be part of the experience of my definition, ergo included. This gives me great power because my definition of Universe includes not only the physical but also the metaphysical experiences of Universe, which the physicists thought they had to exclude from their more limited definition of the finite physical portion of Universe. The metaphysical embraces all the weightless experiences of thought, including all the mathematics and the organization of data regarding all the physical experiments, science itself being metaphysical. "

This is nonsense. It is woo. And much of it is word salad. Before I even start to dive into woo that deep, we need to start with the basics, a real definition of universe that does not include the woo, and does not start (as you do) with a preset derivation of universe into a myriad of copies of itself to represent concepts we already have other words for and are not based on the wrong use of the terms.

You are a schmuck, and like all schmucks that come here with their woo and word salads, you don't want to properly define your terms unless we can stick to nebulous concepts that don't force you to stand on ground that can be nailed down, because you instinctively know that we will tear you to shreds on that ground. We're sick to death of your kind, and though we try to be nice to each person and give them a chance to learn and communicate like a rational THINKING person, it usually does not take long for a Woo-ist to start accusing us of being the irrational ones because we won't adopt their woo.

You whine and moan and accuse us of being dishonest, but we're trying to start from "home plate" (not your weird platform off in the stadium left of left field) before beginning a rational discussion. You have proved that you cannot be fair or rational, and have tried to demand that we conform to your will in how a debate should be operated.

Wrong. You lose. Get the fuck out of here, you dipshit, I don't want to be contaminated with the wooist lunacy that will steal my IQ points and run away laughing about, as Bucky put it, "the regenerative interactions of all otherness and me." Dogdamn, what fucking idiotic woo that is.

(Source for my quotations of Bucky: http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetic...tml#306.00)

You pompous and unintelligible ass. You have contaminated this board long enough with your dipshittery. Now go. Scat. Shoo!

[Image: th?id=JN.5GdDelN1r%2fljbbLv4laVlA&am...;amp;h=300]

Catharsis feels great, don't it? Big Grin

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
26-08-2015, 10:54 PM
RE: My Cosmic Heirarchy: q3
(26-08-2015 09:44 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Catharsis feels great, don't it? Big Grin

Yeah. So does making up useful new words, like "dipshittery".

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
26-08-2015, 11:02 PM
RE: My Cosmic Heirarchy: q3
(26-08-2015 10:54 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(26-08-2015 09:44 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Catharsis feels great, don't it? Big Grin

Yeah. So does making up useful new words, like "dipshittery".

I really like 'fuckbuckets', it just sort of rolls off the tongue. Big Grin

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: