Thread: Minervas philosophy is your worst nightmare and you can't beat it.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm sick of this nonsense, the guy who wrote this has a completely amateurish grasp of physics and indeed science in general, and as result he is often completely and utterly wrong. It's a waste of my time having to repeatedly show why. I don't believe you're still clinging to this piece of New Agey rubbish.

I can't believe you're still clinging to scientific theories who obviously contradict eachother. This theory unified all forces. Everything is energy. e=mc². The only way for energy to interact is through waves. Matter is an illusion and nothing both slowly vibrating energy. Electrons are standing waves of energy. How can matter exist if everything is energy? Isn't it obvious Einstein already proved this with his mathematical equation? Why are you so stubborn to hang on to the theories who can't even explain gravity? Why do are you clinging on to theories which are obviously false in the microcosm, and the theories which are obviously false in the macrocosm?

If we would live in the middle ages, you would belong to the group of people who foolishly clings to the believe that the earth is flat, and will burn people on the stake for bringing up any other theory.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

If they were so intelligent, howcome they can't explain gravity, smartass. Atleast I have an explanation. You have nothing.

Just a hundred and fifty years ago people thought lightning was god smiting buildings.

Humans have been here as H. Sapiens for around tewnety-three thousand years.

2 + 2 = 4

Your argument fails.

|| put with || will always be ||||

2 + 2 = 1 + 2 + 1

is all you are saying.

So then 2 + 2 = 4

4 = 4

Whoops, somebody didn't learn what an equals sign means quite yet. All of those sums are equal to 4 (although they're not really proper sums...). It doesn't matter how you express those things, they're still all equal to 4. What mathematics qualifications do you have, by the way?

You had to first Identify it in your own words. But by the time you do that. You have already pointed out it's existence. Well done.

The words exist and you're saying such a thing doesn't exist. Even though you just mentioned the words. You still think it has no existence. It's good that you enjoy philosophy. Because you're going to need to think a lot harder than that to defeat what I know.

Yes, you truly embody the act of 'thinking hard'. That's one of the most ridiculously badly thought out things I've ever heard somebody say.

Just because the words exist to express something, it does not mean that thing exists, for goodness sakes.

Okay then, let's say 'flying purple teapot'. Has a flying purple teapot just come into existence because there are words to express it? Uh...

How about 'lack of flying purple teapot', then? I guess the teapot is now simultaneously existing and not existing at the same time, because there are words to express it. Good thinking.

Or to go back to the original example, let's say 'infallable proof of the non-existence of subjective truth'. Well, that certainally exists, doesn't it, considering there are words to express it, which seems to be your crazy criteria for determining whether or not something exists; and hence, by your own argument, you are completely incorrect.

I can't believe you're still clinging to scientific theories who obviously contradict eachother. This theory unified all forces. Everything is energy. e=mc². The only way for energy to interact is through waves. Matter is an illusion and nothing both slowly vibrating energy. Electrons are standing waves of energy. How can matter exist if everything is energy? Isn't it obvious Einstein already proved this with his mathematical equation? Why are you so stubborn to hang on to the theories who can't even explain gravity? Why do are you clinging on to theories which are obviously false in the microcosm, and the theories which are obviously false in the macrocosm?

If we would live in the middle ages, you would belong to the group of people who foolishly clings to the believe that the earth is flat, and will burn people on the stake for bringing up any other theory.

Well that pretty much eclipses the stupidity of the above post even. I'm not going to bother responding to that for the umpteenth time. Just reread what I've said before if it's a response you want. Whatever, believe your shitty website with a complete lack of justification or empirical evidence which can be disproved with ridiculously basic knowledge of physics, if that's what makes you happy. You have no idea what you are talking about and I don't care.

Scientific fact is not a 'belief', dummy. It's an observation.

I enjoy philosophy very much, but unfortunately I reject the batshit insane idea of subjective truth and that there can be multiple mutually exclusive facts in one objective reality.

Scientific fact is an idea resulting from an observation. That idea is the belief you have decided about the observation. If subjective does not exist why is there a word for it then?

Subjective truth <---Observe that. The words exist and you're saying such a thing doesn't exist. Even though you just mentioned the words. You still think it has no existence. It's good that you enjoy philosophy. Because you're going to need to think a lot harder than that to defeat what I know.

mutually exclusive facts in one objective reality<----and here it is again. To not believe in something. You had to first Identify it in your own words. But by the time you do that. You have already pointed out it's existence. Well done.

2 + 2 = 4. Your argument fails.

2+2 does not have to equal 4.

2+2= 1,2,1.
2+2= 2,-8,6,4.
2+2= 1,1,1,1.
2+2= -1,-15, 10,10.
2+2= -25,5,5,5,5,5,4.
2+2= 1+1+1+1
2+2= -3+4+3
2+2= -11+10+1+4

What is 4? Just a combination of the other numbers. 4 exists because of the other numbers. This means it is part of the other numbers. This means it is also the other numbers as it cannot exist without them. The possibilities are infinite as all different numbers which have no end can make up the same or different result and are the same or different thing put together or taken away and would not exist without each other as they are a whole. Just like the nose on your face and the wheel on the car.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

There can be no first cause of reality. If there was a first cause. It could only be every cause existing in an infinite chain of causes and effects. The effect would have to be the cause. And all those causes and effects would not be able to differ from the original cause. That is because nothing could be taken away or added to the original cause as it would be the only thing that could possibly exist. This means that you cannot define or conclude a cause or effect for anything as it will continually elude your intelligence.

I know the next move. And I am roughly 50 steps ahead. So go ahead and post the next thing.

Weird, looks like I somehow quoted the future.

The flying purple teapot. Does it exist? Let me point the next thing out. The color purple exists...Flying is something that can happen. And we all know what a teapot is. So plainly those things do exist...So you could obviously put those things together. Just like you can add numbers together. Numbers are not the only thing you can add. You can add chemicals. That involves chemistry. You can add things already in existence to make things from your imagination. Which is not special from the other things existing. You only used what was already existing and discovered it through 'mathematics' or 'chemistry'.

You can add some things, therefore you can add all things? No.

You can't add existing adjectives and nouns together. Everybody knows that, including you.

Ok, I've invented a new object, called a spod. A spod is a flying purple teapot. Just because there is a word for spod, it doesn't mean that spods exist.

Well in my room in this time and space. There is no purple flying teapot. But in another time and space I could create one and there would be. Since time and space is connected you could easily say in this time and space there is a lack of a purple flying teapot, and in another space there is a presence of one. That would be the space where I prove you half wrong. And the other space would be the place where I prove you the other half wrong. And then notice the two time and spaces are connected together. And that makes you fully wrong. This means my thinking is superior to yours because you did not consider this before you posted.

What on Earth is 'another time and space'? Anyway, whatever.

There is a spod on your desk in this time and this space.

There is not a spod on your desk in this time and this space.

Paradox. These things can both be expressed, but they cannot both be true.

But that does not overshadow my philosophy it agrees with it. Incorrect cannot exist without correct. It does not defeat what I am saying. It adds to it. I don't even disagree with you. You're the one that is debating against me. I'm just responding to your struggle with reality.

Meaningless words. Does nothing at all to adress the infallable non-existence of subjective truth.

Wow, I did it again.

For such a supreme intellect I'm surprised you haven't quite gotten a handle on how to edit a post yet.

Okay then, let's say 'flying purple teapot'. Has a flying purple teapot just come into existence because there are words to express it? Uh...

You are totally predictable. Which is very pleasing to me. I am more or less controlling what you say with what I say....Since that's how predictable you are.

The flying purple teapot. Does it exist? Let me point the next thing out. The color purple exists...Flying is something that can happen. And we all know what a teapot is. So plainly those things do exist...So you could obviously put those things together. Just like you can add numbers together. Numbers are not the only thing you can add. You can add chemicals. That involves chemistry. You can add things already in existence to make things from your imagination. Which is not special from the other things existing. You only used what was already existing and discovered it through 'mathematics' or 'chemistry'. Whatever you want to call it. It was just a cause and effect. How do you think anything exists in the first place...because it already does exist anyway from the causes of other things.

How about 'lack of flying purple teapot', then? I guess the teapot is now simultaneously existing and not existing at the same time, because there are words to express it. Good thinking.

Well in my room in this time and space. There is no purple flying teapot. But in another time and space I could create one and there would be. Since time and space is connected you could easily say in this time and space there is a lack of a purple flying teapot, and in another space there is a presence of one. That would be the space where I prove you half wrong. And the other space would be the place where I prove you the other half wrong. And then notice the two time and spaces are connected together. And that makes you fully wrong. This means my thinking is superior to yours because you did not consider this before you posted.

go back to the original example, let's say 'infallable proof of the non-existence of subjective truth'. Well, that certainally exists, doesn't it, considering there are words to express it, which seems to be your crazy criteria for determining whether or not something exists; and hence, by your own argument, you are completely incorrect.

But that does not overshadow my philosophy it agrees with it. Incorrect cannot exist without correct. It does not defeat what I am saying. It adds to it. I don't even disagree with you. You're the one that is debating against me. I'm just responding to your struggle with reality with much fascination like a science project. Some things you can predict other things are a surprise. Depends on the state of the person. It's like alchemy. That's all I'm involved in.

Anything you say is just going to be part of my philosophy. You cannot handle the complexity or vastness. Otherwise you would already know this.

Could you please stop deleting and reposting your post? You're making the thread go retarded.

I have to repost it. Otherwise you don't read it. Can you please think a bit harder so the thread does not go retarded?

No, you don't, you just have to write 'Edit' next to your insert, just like every sane person manages to work out. You barely added anything anyway, but as a result you've completely screwed this page up. Stop talking as if you're not the complete dumbass here please.

Ok I'm sorry the order is messed up for you now. But name calling is not going to make you a good philosopher.

Lovely. What'd make you a good philosopher is responding to my post, please.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Wait a minute. Hold your horses. If my nose is part of me. Than I am my nose. How can I not be my nose if it's part of me.

How can a car be a car without tires. They must be part of the car so they must be the car.

You fail to demonstrate how things operate individually without the original cause as a whole in this way. My philosophical reign continues.....

Is this a picture of a skyscraper?



A tire is not a car. It is part of a car. Very simple.

I know it may be very difficult for you to think outside of your box. Try and realize that I don't disagree with the fact that is a brick. I know it's a brick.

Can we start with I know that is a brick? Now to the next embarrassingly obvious observation. What is the brick made out of? Try and get to the core of what a brick is made out of.

Lovely. What'd make you a good philosopher is responding to my post, please.

what do you not understand about my response. I already have responded. Read it again.

There's no response at all to post 60, which was made in response to post 62, although you might not be able to tell that any more after you screwed the page up.

You should become a spin-doctor Minerva Phoenix.

You're much better suited to it than philosophy (which frankly, you're embarassingly awful at for someone who claims to be "good").


Example: "There is no purple flying teapot. But in another time and space I could create one and there would be."

What?! So what scientific basis are you representing this upon? How about just making it up on the spot.

Originally Posted by Minerva

Anything you say is just going to be part of my philosophy. You cannot handle the complexity or vastness. Otherwise you would already know this.

Nice little get-out clause there.

Oh and can I be noted as the first to call "Troll".

and you wonder why I repost my answers.

Goldney I am not bad at philosophy how dare you

Yes, you are. You give half-reasons to anyone who doubts your "philosophy" that are cryptic and oddly-written, and then claim, that you are "50 steps ahead" and that "Your philosophy is too complex for mere mortals".

In my opinion, any good philosopher can explain even the most complex and mind-bending concepts to anyone, regardless of intellect, without resorting to being arrogant and complacent.

Originally Posted by Minerva

You cannot handle the complexity or vastness.

Originally Posted by Minerva

What do you not understand about my response. I already have responded.

--------

Originally Posted by Minerva

I know the next move. And I am roughly 50 steps ahead.

Originally Posted by Minerva

You are totally predictable. Which is very pleasing to me. I am more or less controlling what you say with what I say....Since that's how predictable you are.

Go on then. What am I going to say next?

Go on then. What am I going to say next?

Your entire response was expected because when you act arrogant and know it all. That is the kind of response you get. Did you think I didn't calculate it?