ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Physics

Physics: What is an Object?

Updated on April 24, 2013
Those who believe that a Dictionary is the ultimate authority on definitions, please copy/paste an unambiguous and non-contradictory definition of OBJECT and shut Wonka's mouth!
Those who believe that a Dictionary is the ultimate authority on definitions, please copy/paste an unambiguous and non-contradictory definition of OBJECT and shut Wonka's mouth!

What Is an Object?


People often use the word “object” without having a clue what it means. Physics is the study of objects; real objects which are said to exist. Physics does not study something which cannot possibly exist. But Mathematicians haven’t a clue what an object is because they can’t even define the term. So how can they possibly be doing Physics? Mathematics has nothing to do with Physics. The so-called “Mathematical Physicists” are not doing Physics; they are doing Math because Math is the study of concepts, not the study of objects.


Object: that which has shape.


It’s that simple. All objects have shape, whether they are abstract objects whose shape is dependent on an observer’s conception, or real objects whose shape is a standalone property and observer-independent.

Reality is comprised of objects. All objects can be illustrated whether they are invisible or not. The invisible objects which mediate the phenomena we call light, gravity and magnetism can certainly be hypothesized. The Hypothesis stage of the Scientific Method is used to illustrate all the objects which will be used as “actors” to explain how they mediate natural phenomena. This explanation is the Theory stage of the Scientific Method.

Light, gravity, magnetism and electricity are all mediated by objects. You simply cannot conceptualize motion without an object being present. Matterless motion is impossible. Anyone talking about dynamic phenomena, like electricity or magnetism, had better have some hypothesized object moving and mediating these phenomena. Now, the entities mediating these phenomena may be invisible to us humans because our sensory system does not have the bandwidth or sensitivity to be stimulated by the whole light spectrum. But this doesn’t mean that there isn’t something (i.e. object) out there performing these actions. Otherwise, you are talking about the motion of nothing, which implies that “nothing” is performing actions which mediate phenomena. This is clearly impossible.

The Universe can only be described as the relation of something (matter) to nothing (space). There is no other option besides something vs nothing. The nouns of reality are necessarily objects which are said to exist. This means that the subject of your discussion had better be a noun of reality if you want to give it the capability to move and interact with other objects. The nouns of grammar like “love” and “bravery” are not objects. They have no shape/form. They cannot possibly have a surface or physical presence. Thus, they cannot possibly be real and exist in reality. Such nouns of grammar are concepts. All concepts are relations which are necessarily predicated on existing objects. Without objects, you cannot even conceive of any concept.

Humans identify reality’s binary system with the labels of “object” and “concept”. These are the only two options which any sentient being can conceptualize to correspond to reality. There is no other option besides something (object) vs nothing (concept).

Comments

Submit a Comment

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Well, now that you gave us your definitions, your whole sermon which invoked these terms is irrational because your definitions are failures. You didn’t understand anything you posted. And here is why…..

    “Even you definition of concept makes all concepts finite!”

    The term finite is an adjective. It can only be used in the context of objects.

    Concepts have no shape or extent, and cannot be qualified by adjectives, like finite and infinite. Linguistics 101.

    .

    “Existence: Dependent and finite.”

    Superman is dependent and finite. So is a tribar, circle, square and that 2020 Corvette. None exist.

    Try again!

    .

    “Reality: Independent, infinite.”

    The term ‘infinite’ is an adjective used in the context of objects. You are necessarily invoking an object in your definition by using the term infinite. Again, there are no infinite objects. An alleged infinite object cannot have shape…. no spatial extent, no architecture, etc. Even you stated they are impossible right here…

    John: “Infinite object: Impossible”

    And you use my definition of object to boot!

    John: “Object: I don't have much of a problem with your definition. Objects have shape and are dependent…”

    The term ‘infinite’ is like the term ‘absolute’….an oxymoron. It cannot be used rationally in ANY sentence whatsoever!

    Try again!

    .

    “A concept is what has relations and dependency by it's contrast”

    1) What is this “WHAT” which has relations? Ambiguous and meaningless!

    2) By its contrast to what? What are you contrasting/differentiating? Ambiguous and meaningless!

    Your attempt at a definition is meaningless. Try again!

    .

    “all concepts are finite!”

    Again….you are a babbling idiot (I hate repeating myself) who doesn’t understand anything he posts. Only objects can be qualified with the term FINITE. All concepts resolve to a verb; i.e. the relation we conceive between objects. Concepts or verbs are neither finite nor infinite.

    .

    “I can define real and exist.”

    LOL…..yeah…..sure!! Either try defining again your terms REAL, EXIST, CONCEPT or concede that you can’t.

    .

    “your definition [of concept] which make space not a concept (space is not a relation of two or more objects!)”

    The term space is indeed a relation between 2 objects. You don’t understand the difference between objects & concepts…..despite my articles I gave you, which you didn’t even read. So you chase your tail in circles.

    A concept is a relation between TWO or more things. Even the terms OBJECT and SPACE are themselves concepts, the former meaning shape and the latter meaning no shape.

    Space: that which lacks shape.

    The lexical concept “shape” invokes 2 object nouns in its relation.

    http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/Physics-What-is-SH

    “the concept of space is dependent on things!”

    Exactly what I said…..this term is dependent on things (i.e. objects, entities, somethings, etc.)

  • profile image

    Johnsesi 4 years ago

    "If you wish to continue arguing your Religious position....you will need to define the terms REAL/EXIST, OBJECT and CONCEPT, FINITE OBJECT, INFINITE OBJECT for the audience. Don't ever use these words in a sentence here again until you define them. I don't have time to converse with that degree of stupid."

    Infinite object: Impossible (I also never used this word!)

    Finite objects: All objects are finite. Finite object is redundant.

    Object: I don't have much of a problem with your definition. Objects have shape and are dependent on what they are not to be objects. Objects are finite.

    Concept: Unlike your definition which make space not a concept (space is not a relation of two or more objects!) A concept is what has relations and dependency by it's contrast (the concept of space is dependent on things! Up is dependent on down), or mental image and quality. There are no concepts without relation or dependency because all concepts are finite!

  • profile image

    Johnsesi 4 years ago

    "Exactly! Now you’re getting why your whole sermon was worthless."

    What? I corrected my error! I have no 'sermon'! Sermons are religious in nature, your reification of objects is religious!

    "All your sermon about “relations” is your opinion. All relations are invented by humans."

    "All relations are invented by humans" Exactly! Do you understand now? The moon can not invent it's own relations!

    "Contradictory relations, like the one you asserted are divorced from reality."

    Where? Can you quote where I asserted a contradictory relation? I need to fix this mistake.

    "What you perceive with your limited sensory system is your OPINION and irrelevant to reality."

    Exactly, objects are perception, not reality.

    "Only in Religion do they perceive and opine."

    You said it!

    "Reality can only be conceptualized without any sensory perceptions and their limitations. In science we Hypothesize objects that will be used as mediators to rationally explain the phenomenon in the Theory stage."

    Sure! So what?

    "Impossible, such an alleged object cannot have shape and there would be no space....an ontological contradiction. There is no provision for infinite shapeless objects in the definition of object."

    Contradiction- Exactly what is found in your definition of concepts. Objects cannot be real in and of themselves!

    "Concept: a relation between 2 or more objects.

    There is NO provision for an object being real (i.e. existing) in the definition of concept!"

    Then why do you say, and I quote:

    "WHAT IS THE UNDERLYING FOUNDATION OF A CONCEPT?

    Unlike images that we can visualize of REAL STANDALONE ENTITIES, concepts cannot be visualized as discrete entities. Why? Because they are the result of atomic activity in the brain, not of standalone entities in our environment."

    Entity = Object

    You assume objects are real standalone entities (real in and of themselves!). Have you justified your claim of real standalone entities that are separate from reality? No! You are reifying objects! Objects are dependent, not standalone!

    "Superman is an object. Superman flies wrt the ground in the movie. ‘Fliels’ is a concept. Superman and the ground are objects which don’t exist…i.e. are NOT real. Same goes with a 2030 stealth fighter jet."

    All objects, are not real. Some objects are existing finite things, some are purely abstract, they both are not real in and of themselves because it contradicts their very nature!!

    "Concepts can and do relate objects which don’t exist. This is why we are able to talk about God, leprechauns, Snow White, tribars, squares, triangles, circles, etc. What a stupid moron you are!"

    When did I dispute that? You just want to call names huh?

    "The Moon is an object and has location…..hence is real."

    The moon exist, but it is not real in and of itself.

    "Without space, the Moon wouldn’t even be an object and wouldn’t exist. Without space, the universe would be an infinite block of matter, which is a contradiction since such a beast cannot have shape."

    Where do I dispute this?

    "You can’t define REAL/EXIST and are thus harping on a losing proposition to save your idiotic Religion at all costs. Yawn!"

    Exist: As you said, having locality, it has appearance and is in contrast to it's environment and is finite.

    Real: That which is not imagined, is complete, unchangeable, infinite - - otherwise, a constitute of reality.

    I can define real and exist.

    "No! It is YOU who confused into thinking that you can come here to talk about YOUR idiotic Religion!"

    What religion of mine? Who are my followers? Please justify your claims!

    "Save your ORDINARY USAGE FOR YOUR PRIEST IN YOUR CHURCH."

    I have not "ordinary usage".

    "In Science we define our terms SCIENTIFIALLY, rationally and without contradictions. No poetry, metaphor, etc.!!!!!!!!!!! Jesus and imaginations are certainly REAL to you because your bonehead cannot even define anything!"

    No thing is real to me. There is no 'real to me'. Jesus is an abstract imagined object! Quote me once saying any thing is real!

    "Fat: "What is a finite concept?"

    John: “All concepts are finite”

    What an idiot!"

    Really? Is there some concept you hold that has no relations or dependencies? Even you definition of concept makes all concepts finite!

    "Fat: "Also, can you tell us what an infinite concept is, since you now claim that existence is not finite (i.e. infinite)?"

    Stupid moron John: “I never 'claimed' such or anything. Please quote me saying exactly that.”

    Here’s what you said you stupid babbling idiot…..

    Stupid moron John: “Existence is a finite”

    Stupid moron John: “Reality is not finite!”"

    Oh I'm so scared! You called me names! Did I offend your delusion?

    Existence =/= Reality!

    Existence: Dependent and finite.

    Reality: Independent, infinite.

    "Not finite means INFINITE, you idiot! Do you have shit for brains?"

    Did I ever say otherwise? Where did I say "not finite doesn't mean infinite". Quote me, I dare yah.

    "Real is a synonym for exist. What is real is what exists. SCIENTIFIC USAGE!!! Your idiotic Religious usage is irrelevant! Go talk to your Priest about it."

    Science does not claim anything about reality. Reality is CERTAIN, science is uncertain and based on what is probable by empirical evidence in the universe.

    "You cannot define anything, but yet such a bonehead like you comes here to use words like REAL/EXIST, OBJECT and CONCEPT in ordinary poetic usage without understanding anything and spewing contradictory drivel all over the place."

    Where? Quote my poetry and contradictory drivel so I can correct my mistake! It is impossible for an object to be real in and of itself! If any object where real in and of itself, it would be separate from reality and be independent and have no relations! Objects cannot have such a nature! Objects are not a product of reality, they are a product of human perception. You are so assured by your duality brain that you are blind!

    "Again…..go have these Religious discussion with your Priest."

    That is an insane rhetoric. Please, your assumptions do not affect reality in anyway, reality doesn't care!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    John,

    If you wish to continue arguing your Religious position....you will need to define the terms REAL/EXIST, OBJECT and CONCEPT, FINITE OBJECT, INFINITE OBJECT for the audience. Don't ever use these words in a sentence here again until you define them. I don't have time to converse with that degree of stupid.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “Sorry, scrap the entire perception thing, I'm tired. The best way to put it is, you cannot perceive an environment you are not in or looking at.”

    Exactly! Now you’re getting why your whole sermon was worthless. All your sermon about “relations” is your opinion. All relations are invented by humans. Contradictory relations, like the one you asserted are divorced from reality. What you perceive with your limited sensory system is your OPINION and irrelevant to reality. Only in Religion do they perceive and opine. Reality can only be conceptualized without any sensory perceptions and their limitations. In science we Hypothesize objects that will be used as mediators to rationally explain the phenomenon in the Theory stage.

    http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-INTELLIGEN

    “I define god as an infinite, loving, object”

    Impossible, such an alleged object cannot have shape and there would be no space....an ontological contradiction. There is no provision for infinite shapeless objects in the definition of object.

    Object: that which has shape.

    There are no infinite objects….here, learn from your Priests:

    “The infinite divisibility of a continuum is an operation which exists only in thought. It is merely an idea which is in fact impugned by the results of our observations of nature and of our physical and chemical experiments. Our principal result is that the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.” -- David Hilbert (Mathematician Extraordinaire), On The Infinite

    .

    John: “"'Your definition of concept is defined with a reification of objects. '”

    Fat:” You haven’t justified this statement. And you can’t."”

    John: “Your entire definition of concept revolves completely around objects being real in and of themselves.”

    Concept: a relation between 2 or more objects.

    There is NO provision for an object being real (i.e. existing) in the definition of concept!

    Superman is an object. Superman flies wrt the ground in the movie. ‘Fliels’ is a concept. Superman and the ground are objects which don’t exist…i.e. are NOT real. Same goes with a 2030 stealth fighter jet.

    Concepts can and do relate objects which don’t exist. This is why we are able to talk about God, leprechauns, Snow White, tribars, squares, triangles, circles, etc. What a stupid moron you are!

    .

    “Objects cannot be both be intrinsically real and dependent on space!”

    For the 10 th time…..nonsense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Exist/real: object with location.

    The Moon is an object and has location…..hence is real. Without space, the Moon wouldn’t even be an object and wouldn’t exist. Without space, the universe would be an infinite block of matter, which is a contradiction since such a beast cannot have shape.

    You can’t define REAL/EXIST and are thus harping on a losing proposition to save your idiotic Religion at all costs. Yawn!

    .

    “No, you are confused with ordinary usage. “

    No! It is YOU who confused into thinking that you can come here to talk about YOUR idiotic Religion! Save your ORDINARY USAGE FOR YOUR PRIEST IN YOUR CHURCH. In Science we define our terms SCIENTIFIALLY, rationally and without contradictions. No poetry, metaphor, etc.!!!!!!!!!!! Jesus and imaginations are certainly REAL to you because your bonehead cannot even define anything!

    .

    Fat: "What is a finite concept?"

    John: “All concepts are finite”

    What an idiot!

    Fat: "Also, can you tell us what an infinite concept is, since you now claim that existence is not finite (i.e. infinite)?"

    Stupid moron John: “I never 'claimed' such or anything. Please quote me saying exactly that.”

    Here’s what you said you stupid babbling idiot…..

    Stupid moron John: “Existence is a finite”

    Stupid moron John: “Reality is not finite!”

    Not finite means INFINITE, you idiot! Do you have shit for brains?

    Real is a synonym for exist. What is real is what exists. SCIENTIFIC USAGE!!! Your idiotic Religious usage is irrelevant! Go talk to your Priest about it.

    You cannot define anything, but yet such a bonehead like you comes here to use words like REAL/EXIST, OBJECT and CONCEPT in ordinary poetic usage without understanding anything and spewing contradictory drivel all over the place. Again…..go have these Religious discussion with your Priest.

  • profile image

    Johnsesi 4 years ago

    "Whoa! But you just said that Reality is finite.

    Real is a synonym for exist. What is real is what exists."

    No, you are confused with ordinary usage. What is real, what is actual, can only be ultimately real. And even if you conflate real and exist, that is still not reality! Existence requires dependency and relation.

    "Also, can you tell us what an infinite concept is, since you now claim that existence is not finite (i.e. infinite)?"

    I never 'claimed' such or anything. Please quote me saying exactly that.

  • profile image

    Johnsesi 4 years ago

    Sorry, scrap the entire perception thing, I'm tired. The best way to put it is, you cannot perceive an environment you are not in or looking at.

  • profile image

    Johnsesi 4 years ago

    "Perception: You can not perceive outside when you are in your room. Try it, you will fail."

    Scratch that, you cannot perceive anything you can't see.

  • profile image

    Johnsesi 4 years ago

    "…. and a qualitative description of spatial extent in an object’s architecture. Again, you haven’t justified how an object loses its spatial extent, its matter and becomes a 0D nothing when you look away."

    It doesn't become nothing! I also never said that.

    The objects are things, they can't become nothing.

    In reality, they are already nothing even when you conceptualize them.

    "And how does it gain it back when look at ‘it’, whatever ‘it’ is when it ain't there any more."

    You have your mind on the relative. Reality and it's parts do not change or anything when you look away! Perception: You can not perceive outside when you are in your room. Try it, you will fail.

    Objects rely on appearing. Your brain conceptualizes an object autonomically.

    "Perhaps its wave-function collapses?"

    No, it has nothing to do with that. You yourself are conceptualized! You yourself are a part of reality and are not real inherently!

    "Unless you can give the details ….your Religion is worthless."

    Frankly, details are worthless, one can give a million details and still not rationally explain. Sadly, when it comes to reality, one has to understand themselves, the most you can do is provoke them.

  • profile image

    Johnsesi 4 years ago

    "We relate what the background of space encloses and identify the relation we term object. Without any humans to identify this scenario, relate it and name it……an object still depends on space."

    Objects cannot be both be intrinsically real and dependent on space! Space is a concept! Space does not exist(in contrast to objects.) and is dependent on relation!

    "If there was no space there would be no objects and no universe."

    Because they are all formed by duality! Space - concept, Object - concept. They are dependent on relation.

    What is the universe? All existing things and space. What does that tell you? Wake up!

    There is no space and object- rather, space and object are just concepts for different portions of the universe!

    "There is no brain requirement to relate anything."

    Really? Tell me how an object relates itself and makes duality without a brain. What does it do? How does it relate? Does the object relate other objects? How does it do this? Does it have some brainless consciousness? It's just a "no brainer", huh?

    "Brains come afterwards to identify, imagine, conceptualize, name and define rationally."

    So... Things just relate things... and then brains come and do it again?

    "You confuse how humans conceptualize and define words with what is out there. This is all you’ve been doing. Yawn."

    What! That's funny.

    Please tell me, what is out there that you and only you have been revealed without concept? Objects? Relating by themselves and having shape and being real in and of themselves outside of reality?

    "You evolved, identified what I said above….and called it ‘object’. The Earth was already moving around the Sun before you evolved."

    Motion is conceptual! Before I evolved is not reality! Before I evolved is a notion, and it's wrong! "I" never evolved, I am a consequence and a part of human evolution, just like I am a part of reality- not separate!

    "Again…you are not special. You don’t invent reality….you imagine, conceptualize, hypothesize and explain. Again, you confuse how humans define words with what is out there. It's getting old."

    No thing invents reality! Quote me once claiming to be special and a god who invented reality! I am trapped in reality just like you, I am trapped with a duality brain like you. Man can't see, discover, or find reality, reality is not hiding under a rock, you are in it and a part of it! The most you can try to do is understand reality rationally. Believing you and your objects are not a part of reality is a delusion. Even if you are a brain in a jar (and don't worry everyone is a brain stuck in one called body!) or dreaming, you are trapped in reality without escape! The only thing you can do is try ignore reality with delusion. Reality doesn't care if you ignore it, it won't mold to your beliefs and desires.

    "'Your definition of concept is defined with a reification of objects. '

    You haven’t justified this statement. And you can’t."

    I define god as an infinite, loving, object, that answers my prayers and is real.

    If you have any objections to my definition, you haven't justified them and you can't.

    However I can justify how you reify objects in your definition and I already have! But since your reification definition of 'concept' is so ingrained into your mind, you fail to see how objects are not real intrinsically (just like the religious refuse to see what's wrong with their definition of god!). Your entire definition of concept revolves completely around objects being real in and of themselves. Can you not see how a object being real inherently is contradictory? You insert the assumption in your definition of concept before rationally justifying it like the definition of god above.

    "What is a finite concept?"

    All concepts are finite, even the concept of infinity. Concepts involve relation and dependency, true infinity can not be conceptualized.

    "What is an infinite concept?"

    There can't be. The concept of reality is not reality itself, one cannot conceptualize reality because it is infinite, and one cannot think in non-duality.

    "You should read what you post. Appearance invokes an observer.

    So the Moon needs you to exist. Again…..nice Religion!"

    I said in full:

    "Something without observer dependency is not a referent and has no relation. It can't be actually 'something'. Something needs appearance of some kind to exist."

    That's not saying the moon, as the portion of reality labelled 'moon', needs me to BE. The moon is a part of reality and reality is independent. However, existence is not reality! Existence is finite, reality is infinite. Things like the moon are conceived, reality is not and can not be conceived.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “No 'thing' is absolute.”

    Indeed, there are no absolute things.

    Fat: "Objects in nature have a dependency to their background of space"

    John: “Yes they do, but nature is not a brain, it can't make relations or dependencies.”

    We relate what the background of space encloses and identify the relation we term object. Without any humans to identify this scenario, relate it and name it……an object still depends on space. If there was no space there would be no objects and no universe. Objects depend on space by their intrinsic property: shape. There is no brain requirement to relate anything. Brains come afterwards to identify, imagine, conceptualize, name and define rationally.

    You confuse how humans conceptualize and define words with what is out there. This is all you’ve been doing. Yawn.

    .

    “YOU evolved and decided that reality was objects.”

    You evolved, identified what I said above….and called it ‘object’. The Earth was already moving around the Sun before you evolved. Again…you are not special. You don’t invent reality….you imagine, conceptualize, hypothesize and explain. Again, you confuse how humans define words with what is out there. It's getting old.

    .

    “Your definition of concept is defined with a reification of objects. “

    You haven’t justified this statement. And you can’t.

    .

    “Existence is a finite concept”

    What is a finite concept?

    .

    “Reality is not finite!”

    Whoa! But you just said that Reality is finite.

    Real is a synonym for exist. What is real is what exists.

    Yikes!

    Also, can you tell us what an infinite concept is, since you now claim that existence is not finite (i.e. infinite)?

    .

    John: ““It can't be actually 'something'. Something needs appearance of some kind to exist. “”

    John: “I never said the moon needs me to be!”

    You should read what you post. Appearance invokes an observer.

    So the Moon needs you to exist. Again…..nice Religion!

    .

    “L,W and H are conceptual”

    …. and a qualitative description of spatial extent in an object’s architecture. Again, you haven’t justified how an object loses its spatial extent, its matter and becomes a 0D nothing when you look away. And how does it gain it back when look at ‘it’, whatever ‘it’ is when it ain't there any more. Perhaps its wave-function collapses? Unless you can give the details ….your Religion is worthless.

  • profile image

    Johnsesi 4 years ago

    "So the Moon is dependent on a human to make a conceptual relation for it to be a moon? Nice Religion you got there. Keep kicking the ball around."

    So the Moon is independent on a human to make a conceptual relation for it to be a moon? Nice Rhetoric you got there. Keep kicking the ball around.

    "Absolute: without dependencies or relations."

    No 'thing' is absolute.

    "Conceptual relations are only created by man. Nature has none."

    'Reality' has no relations and is not dependent on anything. Reality is boundless.

    "Objects in nature have a dependency to their background of space"

    Yes they do, but nature is not a brain, it can't make relations or dependencies.

    "irrespective of YOU evolving to identify this natural dependency and use a word (a conceptual relation) to name & define it (i.e. shape). You are not special…..sorry!"

    There can't be a natural dependency. Reality just IS! YOU evolved and decided that reality was objects. Nobody is special, you, the moon, and every other thing are a part of reality, not separate.

    "Nope, it doesn’t. This is your strawman because you still don’t understand what a concept it. Here, educate yourself…"

    Your definition of concept is defined with a reification of objects. You are assuming objects are inherently real!

    "Go tell the Moon that it needs YOU to exist….and that when you die, the Moon vanishes into the void."

    Existence is a finite concept. Reality is not finite! I never said the moon needs me to be! The moon is a part of reality, reality just IS. Reality doesn't need anything, however the moon itself is not inherently real!

    " Care to explain how the Moon gains L,W and H the instant you look at it….and loses L,W and H when you look away? Please explain the mechanics of this process."

    L,W and H are conceptual! The 'moon' doesn't gain or lose anything, they are relational dependencies! You can't have top without bottom! Humans evolved to think in duality and can only think in duality, humans did not evolve to be aware of what is ultimately real. It is natural for humanity and other animals to unconsciously assume objects. Draw a square on a piece of paper, do you have to consciously think "top, bottom, side, side" - or is it autonomic in your brain just like it is autonomic to beat your heart?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “The referent is dependent on concept to be anything”

    So the Moon is dependent on a human to make a conceptual relation for it to be a moon? Nice Religion you got there. Keep kicking the ball around.

    .

    “If things were absolute they would not be things. Things can not be absolute they are relative, they must have relation.”

    Absolute: without dependencies or relations.

    Conceptual relations are only created by man. Nature has none. Objects in nature have a dependency to their background of space, irrespective of YOU evolving to identify this natural dependency and use a word (a conceptual relation) to name & define it (i.e. shape). You are not special…..sorry!

    .

    “Objects are conceptual, dependent on relation”

    Conceptual relations are only created by man. Nature has none. Objects in nature have a dependency to their background of space, irrespective of YOU evolving to identify this dependency and use a word (a conceptual relation) to name & define it (i.e. shape). You are not special…..sorry!

    You are just kicking a ball around. Do you like football?

    .

    “Your explanation actually points to objects dependency on observer, RELATION. “

    Nope, it doesn’t. This is your strawman because you still don’t understand what a concept it. Here, educate yourself…

    https://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lan...

    .

    “It can't be actually 'something'. Something needs appearance of some kind to exist. “

    Go tell the Moon that it needs YOU to exist….and that when you die, the Moon vanishes into the void. Care to explain how the Moon gains L,W and H the instant you look at it….and loses L,W and H when you look away? Please explain the mechanics of this process.

  • profile image

    Johnsesi 4 years ago

    "Ahhhh….but now you are confusing the word with the REFERENT that is out there, like the Moon. The word “Moon” is a label, a lexical concept. What this label refers to, out there above us, is what falls under our category of OBJECT. I mean, what is out there is not a conceptual relation, it is a thing. The 2 categories of words are objects & concepts. Both are defined."

    That is an reification of thing. "What is out there is" a "thing" is a conceptual relation. Things are defined solely by their relations. Things exist and are finite because of relation. The 'referent' is circular, it is what a word stands for. The referent is actually just conceptual as well. The referent is dependent on concept to be anything. If things were absolute they would not be things. Things can not be absolute they are relative, they must have relation.

    “And being words, they are illusions.”

    "Again, words are concepts. Illusions are images our brain adds to our field of vision despite the input received from our eyes. You don’t understand the diff between the two."

    It is analogical. Illusions how I am using, is that they are artificial/delusional.

    "Nope! Impossible for an object to be independent. All objects are dependent to their background. There is never any absolutelness when it comes to objects, even for a single object in the universe.

    My point exactly. Objects are conceptual, dependent on relation. Without relation they are not anything. Objects are not ultimately real.

    "All objects are meaningless. Only concepts have meaning. Philosophy & Linguistics 101."

    If objects are meaningless then they would have to be absolute, they cannot be. They have to be conceptual. Objects meaning come from their relations. "All objects are meaningless" is contradictory.

    "You are pissing outside the pot. You obviously imagined that computer you used to type that sentence. Your brain takes input from your sensory system (eyes) and images objects for you. That’s how you can move your limbs in space and touch objects. Biology 101."

    That was the conclusion you made when you said "concepts can't be imagined". Objects are concepts, they are dependent on relation. There is no objects or concepts, just concept.

    "Yes, you are close…but….even “nothing” is a concept and relation. There is no word you can utter that isn’t a relation. And some of those words resolve to a referent (an object)."

    Yes nothing is a concept. It is just in contrast to something. Something can only be something if there is nothing (space). The human brain thinks in duality, but they are not ultimately real.

    “What is shape?”

    "Right here….in all its detail….

    http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/Physics-What-is-SH...

    Your explanation actually points to objects dependency on observer, RELATION. Something without observer dependency is not a referent and has no relation. It can't be actually 'something'. Something needs appearance of some kind to exist. Draw a circle on a piece of paper, is it a concept, or independent.

    "Wrong. There are no observers in reality. The moon requires no observer to be an object distinct from the Earth. Obviously “shape” is an observer-independent property that all objects have. It’s all in the article in xtreme detail ^^^^^^^"

    Existence is observer dependent. There are no observers in reality is right. Reality, that which is ultimate, is not an object, it has no relation and is unchangeable. The moon is not ultimately real if it has shape (relation). Appearances exist as what observers conceptualize as parts of reality. The delusion of observers and objects are that they are inherently real.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “Exactly, all words are lexical concepts. “

    Bingo!

    “Objects, things, shape, form, and reality are concepts. They are nothing but words.”

    Ahhhh….but now you are confusing the word with the REFERENT that is out there, like the Moon. The word “Moon” is a label, a lexical concept. What this label refers to, out there above us, is what falls under our category of OBJECT. I mean, what is out there is not a conceptual relation, it is a thing. The 2 categories of words are objects & concepts. Both are defined.

    .

    “And being words, they are illusions.”

    Again, words are concepts. Illusions are images our brain adds to our field of vision despite the input received from our eyes. You don’t understand the diff between the two.

    .

    “And object is nothing because for it to be something it has to be independent of anything.”

    Nope! Impossible for an object to be independent. All objects are dependent to their background. There is never any absolutelness when it comes to objects, even for a single object in the universe.

    .

    “A 'real' object is meaningless”

    All objects are meaningless. Only concepts have meaning. Philosophy & Linguistics 101.

    “Then it is impossible to imagine an object because objects are necessarily concepts or they become not anything.”

    You are pissing outside the pot. You obviously imagined that computer you used to type that sentence. Your brain takes input from your sensory system (eyes) and images objects for you. That’s how you can move your limbs in space and touch objects. Biology 101.

    .

    “There is no object that has no relation, because without relation an object is nothing.”

    Yes, you are close…but….even “nothing” is a concept and relation. There is no word you can utter that isn’t a relation. And some of those words resolve to a referent (an object).

    .

    “For example, you have a ball what makes the ball an object? Is it shape?”

    You used the word “ball” to point at “something”, just like all the other “somethings”. Your brain discerned that something from its background. Shape was the criterion your brain used to do this. Obviously we have to define this “something” (i.e. object) category. The ball falls under a category of words we call object.

    .

    “What is shape?”

    Right here….in all its detail….

    https://hubpages.com/education/Physics-What-is-SHA...

    .

    “Shape is appearance. “

    Wrong. There are no observers in reality. The moon requires no observer to be an object distinct from the Earth. Obviously “shape” is an observer-independent property that all objects have. It’s all in the article in xtreme detail ^^^^^^^

  • profile image

    Johnsesi 4 years ago

    Okay...

    "As words, ‘object’ and ‘reality/existence’ are concepts, as ALL words are syntactically concepts we call “lexical concepts”. But during the phase of contextual grammar, some words will resolve as labels pointing to their referents which are OBJECTS. We place all those words in the dictionary under the category of OBJECT….the rest go under the category of CONCEPT. Linguistics 101.

    Concept: a relation between 2 or more objects."

    Exactly, all words are lexical concepts. Objects, things, shape, form, and reality are concepts. They are nothing but words.

    And being words, they are illusions. And object is nothing because for it to be something it has to be independent of anything. When someone tells me, "look at this" in canadian, I can't understand because the words are meaningless. If words had meaning then definitions wouldn't be circular and they would be understood independent of concepts for them. This is how objects work, they are just like words because that is the only thing that makes them real to humans. A 'real' object is meaningless it is nothing. That is why I say there is only concepts.

    "All objects are imagined. Objects precede concepts. It’s impossible to imagine a concept!

    All objects are imagined because we form a mental image of them and thus, can illustrate them. We learn this on the first day we are born.

    To IMAGINE means to form a mental IMAGE, thus, necessarily invoking the term SHAPE!

    Take a Kindergarten 101 course so you can play with shape blocks and learn the basics, ok?"

    Then it is impossible to imagine an object because objects are necessarily concepts or they become not anything. The first conceptualizing of object is from duality, and object is defined by what it is in relation to. There is no object that has no relation, because without relation an object is nothing.

    For example, you have a ball what makes the ball an object? Is it shape? What is shape? Shape is appearance. What is appearance? Appearance is coming to exist. It comes to exist because it is conceptualized to it's relation. The ball exist because of its relation to what it is not. What I mean is there is the bottom of the ball, the top, the sides, and the environment the ball is in. It is all relations. Without conceptualizing the ball, the ball is indistinguishable from what it is not, hence not anything. The ball is illusion.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    John,

    “ but there is no object, only concepts.”

    Whoa!!! Hold it right there!!!!!!!!!!!

    What do you mean by OBJECT and CONCEPT?????

    Before blessing us with your sermon, please define these terms unambiguously and without contradictions, or forever hold your peace. Here you go….

    OBJECT:_________

    CONCEPT:________

    So…..There’s no objects, John? Your mum gave birth to a concept and decided to name it “John”? Is that what your Pastor told you every Sunday, and you memorized it by rote?

    .

    “Objects and reality are both concepts.”

    As words, ‘object’ and ‘reality/existence’ are concepts, as ALL words are syntactically concepts we call “lexical concepts”. But during the phase of contextual grammar, some words will resolve as labels pointing to their referents which are OBJECTS. We place all those words in the dictionary under the category of OBJECT….the rest go under the category of CONCEPT. Linguistics 101.

    Concept: a relation between 2 or more objects.

    Here, educate yourself and eradicate your ignorance, John….

    https://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lan...

    .

    “shape is only an appearance of a thing. It is all illusion.”

    Perhaps yo momma was drunk or high on Carbon Monoxide when she had you. The shape of your body which caused her pain as it came out of her was just an illusion? Can you look her in the eye (an object) and tell her that in her face (an object)?

    Shape is the only intrinsic property of an object. All objects have this property before any idiotic human ape decides to get high on recreational substances and decree himself as an OBSERVER of sorts. Reality is observer-independent. The Moon has shape before you decide to decree yourself as God and give any opinion on the issue.

    Here…..educate yourself….

    https://hubpages.com/education/Physics-What-is-SHA...

    .

    “Appearence=mental image”

    Exactly! The term ‘imagine’ stems from ‘image’ which necessarily invokes shape and visualization. We have the naturally inherent capacity to imagine objects – any object! In Physics, “to imagine” means “to visualize" an object; specifically, an object that will be used as a mediator in, say, our Theory of Light for example.

    .

    “Concepts=mental image”

    Nonsense! Concepts are not imagined….they are “conceptualized”; i.e. related! Learn the difference. You cannot visualize a concept….you cannot illustrate love, justice, virtue, government. You cannot illustrate them. There is no way to form a mental image of any concept. You can only form a mental image of an OBJECT. A minimum of 2 objects are required to conceptualize any concept….like love for example. Philosophy & Linguistics 101. Get a basic education!

    .

    “When you label a object or something as an object, what are you doing? It is conceptualizing. “

    Bingo! Jesus has finally blessed you! Praise the Lord!! I see that all those years you spent in Church weren’t a complete waste after all…..

    .

    “You are relying on a picture of nothing at all and deciding "this is a TV"

    Nothing: that which lacks shape.

    A TV has shape….it’s an object. We can point at it and illustrate it. We have something before us. We don’t have nothingness before us. We point to and name all objects. We relate objects in order to define concepts. Learn the basics of language so you don’t chase your tail in circles spewing nonsense….or otherwise visit an ophthalmologist so he can help you see that TV in front of you and that 800 lb gorilla in the room.

    .

    “There is no object and concept, there is only one, and that is concept.”

    All concepts are predicated on objects. Impossible to establish a relation (i.e. concept) without a minimum of TWO objects. Without objects, there can be no concepts related and defined. Learn the basics!

    .

    “Can you imagine an 'object' without concept? It's impossible.”

    All objects are imagined. Objects precede concepts. It’s impossible to imagine a concept!

    All objects are imagined because we form a mental image of them and thus, can illustrate them. We learn this on the first day we are born.

    To IMAGINE means to form a mental IMAGE, thus, necessarily invoking the term SHAPE!

    Take a Kindergarten 101 course so you can play with shape blocks and learn the basics, ok?

  • profile image

    Johnsesi 4 years ago

    What is an object? You say object=that which has shape, but there is no object, only concepts.

    Objects and reality are both concepts.

    A shape is only an appearance of a thing. It is all illusion.

    Appearence=mental image - Concepts=mental image

    When you label a object or something as an object, what are you doing? It is conceptualizing. You are relying on a picture of nothing at all and deciding "this is a TV". There is really not a thing, but your concept based on appearances decides there is. There is no object and concept, there is only one, and that is concept. Can you imagine an 'object' without concept? It's impossible.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Hi Brett O'Donnell,

    There is word going around that you have contradicted the definition of 'object'. If that's that case, I would like to humbly take this opportunity to congratulate you and remove this obviously-refuted article from the Internet.

    Before I take other people's words for granted, can you please post your refutation here for the record?

    Much appreciated and thank you in advance for your response.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “Fattie, the girth of your penetrating XXXXX … enough to make any woman moan”

    Sadly, this is all women know me for…Ha!

    “ are abstract objects impossible by their definitions?”

    Yes….and by the fact that we can reason that they can’t have location. A circle is an object we can illustrate. The ink exists….the paper exists….but the circle can’t exist. The circle and the square are conceptually 2D. Only 3D objects can possibly exist. Not all 3D objects can exist though. For example, the 3D cube cannot exist. This is an ideal cube with purely straight edges and purely 90-degree angles....as defined. No such monsters are possible in reality. Reality builds all its objects with atoms…..little imperfect objects.

    Similarly, 3D Superman cannot exist. But Superman is an object….we watch him fly in movies and perform contradictory feats of strength.

    The Devil’s advocate can cut a circular-shaped object, claim it’s a circle….and build a box, and claim it’s a cube. Now he claims they have location. But these are not the ideal 2D and 3D objects they are DEFINED to be. You cannot even build anything 2D.....anything perfectly circular....or anything perfectly straight.

    Hope this helps. You’re welcome.

  • confuscience profile image

    confuscience 4 years ago

    Once again, Fattie, the girth of your penetrating explanations are enough to make any woman moan... just remember, if she can walk to the kitchen afterwards, you don't deserve a sandwich.

    "..and the circle & triangle are abstract objects which are impossible to exist."

    One more quick tidbit, are abstract objects impossible by their definitions? i.e. circle : TWO-dimensional geometric shape, whose center is equa-distant to its sides... In other words, a circle by definition has no width, and therefore impossible to exist in the universe?

    Thanks again for setting the record straight. I was thinking 'once an object, always an object.'

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “So just comparing the pack of wolves and pride of lions would be comparing concepts (categories), as long as we are not using them to explain any phenomenon.”

    In Physics, an object is your exhibit in your Hypothesis which will be an actor in your Theory. The only requirement for a valid exhibit is shape. All matter nouns qualify as objects in this sense. We point to a stick of butter and call it butter. The ET (visiting us from another world) does not yet know whether butter is made of simpler parts and he is not comparing the designated object with anything else for the moment. He's just trying to learn a word. We can later discuss that the butter is made of molecules, at which point we are making use of THE WORD ‘butter’ as a concept (for relational purposes), and introduced a new object called ‘molecule’. In this new context, we can only refer to the “concept” butter which is now a ‘relation’ between specific molecular objects....because the ET is now only dealing with the ‘molecule’ object at the center of his exhibit. Remember, relations are concepts.

    The subject of our discussion in the present context is a category. The category is used for relationship purposes. In this sense, our usage of the terms ‘pack’ and ‘pride’ are concepts. Remember, words are labels. Labels don’t establish meanings; only definitions and contexts do. But labels must be used consistently in your theory. A ‘pride’ cannot be a concept and an object in your theory.

    There is also a contrast between categorical concepts and abstract concepts like spacetime, energy, time, 0D particle, 1D string, black hole, Higgs Boson, dark matter, dark energy, waves, wavicles, etc. These are not categories. They are pure abstractions.

    “But when we are attempting to explain an interaction, the pride is now an object.”

    Now we have a composition (aggregate entity), NOT a relation. We illustrate it in our hypothesis as an object…it has shape and a surface and is treated as a SINGLE PIECE. Why do we do this? Because we will explain how this single piece knocked down that bridge. Again, names are irrelevant. Call it ‘X’ if you like. Similar case is air, as in atmosphere. It is a composition of molecules. But is ‘air’ a concept if you will explain in your Theory how the roof was blown off a house in a storm?

    “And this would not be reification because we would not change the concept into an object WITHIN the explanation, right?”

    An object is what you illustrate and name in your Hypothesis. It is used in your Theory to explain a phenomenon. It is never treated as a concept. And a concept is never treated as an object. Consistency is the key here.

    “the image of an elephant on a computer screen is a hypothetical object, like a triangle or circle on a piece of paper?”

    For the purposes of ‘objecthood’, they are objects. They have shape. They are the subject of our discussion, can be illustrated, measured, related, etc.

    For the purposes of ‘existence’, the elephant on the screen is an object which doesn’t exist (although an elephant "out there" can exist if it has location)…..and the circle & triangle are abstract objects which are impossible to exist as it is impossible for them to have location.

  • confuscience profile image

    confuscience 4 years ago

    Thanks for the quick response, FF.

    "In similar fashion, did the plane collide in the forest (an object), cutting that object in half, or did it collide with individual trees or atoms... Science deals with the entity in question that mediates the phenomenon."

    I think I got it!

    "If you are going to compare a pack of wolves to a pride of lions, then yes, you are comparing concepts (i.e. categories)."

    Fuck me, just lost it...

    So just comparing the pack and pride would be comparing concepts (categories), as long as we are not using them to explain any phenomenon. But when we are attempting to explain an interaction, the pride is now an object. And this would not be reification because we would not change the concept into an object WITHIN the explanation, right?

    And also, just for clarification, the image of an elephant on a computer screen is a hypothetical object, like a triangle or circle on a piece of paper?...

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    “for argument's sake, let the number be 5 lions, then I do not think a 'pride of lions' is an object, but distinct objects spatially separated from one another by nothingness.”

    It’s the same scenario with atoms….. say we have N atoms. All atoms have space between them. Then isn’t that composition an object that we treat as a single entity for the purposes of our theory?

    What is important to understand is that an object is used to explain a phenomenon in your theory. Your theory will treat YOUR hypothesized object as a single piece.

    For example, did a car collide with another car or did atoms collide? Do insurance adjusters and police officers come out to measure collisions between individual atoms or cars?

    In similar fashion, did the plane collide in the forest (an object), cutting that object in half, or did it collide with individual trees or atoms. Will the insurance adjuster come out to look at how the plane hit individual trees or atoms in order to assess what happened, or will he report that the plane crashed and cut through the forest?

    You can point to that collection of trees with shape and call it ‘forest’. That is an entity for the purposes of your theory. If your theory is about how the skier died, then the ‘tree’ is your hypothesis and a collision is your theory. Similarly, you can point to that collection of lions and call it ‘pride’ or ‘pack’ or 'X' or whatever. Now you can explain why that small suspended bridge in the jungle collapsed as this pack/pride was on it and collapsed it. This is our entity in the center of our theory….not ‘a’ lion. Science deals with the entity in question that mediates the phenomenon. If you are going to compare a pack of wolves to a pride of lions, then yes, you are comparing concepts (i.e. categories). But categories don’t perform actions. Perhaps ‘a’ lion killed a tourist….but that is another theory with another object in the center of that specific theory.

    Names are irrelevant. People are hung up on names and missing the point of the scientific method entirely.

  • confuscience profile image

    confuscience 4 years ago

    I've read the article and the comments that have followed...

    I understand the definition of object : that which has shape; spacial separation.

    In the comments section, I have seen various examples or illustrations of what some people think are objects and what some people think are not objects.

    One of the referents used is a 'pride of lions'. How is this group of lions an objects? If we did the same Single Object Universe philosophical thought experiment...

    (...and on this subject, I happen to agree with Andre; thought experiment is the means by which we use our imagination to determine the nature of something, under conditions we cannot replicate in the world)

    ... but expanded the number of objects to qualify as a 'pride of lions', say, for argument's sake, let the number be 5 lions, then I do not think a 'pride of lions' is an object, but distinct objects spatially separated from one another by nothingness.

    The same can be said of a 'forest' in the Finite Object Universe, as well as galaxies, the solar system, and any other group of distinct objects that COULD be spatially separated by nothingness.

    I think these, and any other groups, might be better described as concepts, just as the universe is a concept based in the definition of 'all objects and space (nothingness)'.

    Another set of examples used in the comments section was that of 'heads' and 'mountains' as objects. Aren't these descriptions of PARTS of objects, subjective in that they are merely designating particular areas (compositions) of a larger object? Aren't 'heads' part of a larger body? Aren't 'mountains' part of a larger land mass?

    I'm just wondering what thoughts we might have concerning how these examples fit into their best definitions...

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Mike is a big boy. He did a good job justifying his argument.

    Yeah, the Molyneux Cult is known for banning the IP's of those who can refute their dogma.

  • profile image

    El Dude 5 years ago

    Poor guy's all alone against the mob too, but the site doesn't let me register (or maybe they blocked me already as I had an anon ID once).

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Yeah, that's Mike Hutner educating Molyneux's brain-dead robots on the basics of Physics. Molyneux's Cult prides itself on being experts in logic, thinking and critical reasoning. But these religious half-wits don't even see their glaring contradictions: Fallacy of Authority & Popularity....just to name a few.

  • profile image

    El Dude 5 years ago

    First question these "free thinkers" ask is:

    'What exactly is your scientific background?'

    Haha! Amazing. They are incapable of thinking about each point rationally.

  • profile image

    El Dude 5 years ago

    Watch how the people at Freedomainradio bully this guy just because he asks a few questions about physics.

    http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/37438.as...

    What a bunch of intellectual cowards. They are the epitome of a cult.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Thank you for reading this boring stuff, Ricardius. Most people come here only to read the title and get the sudden epiphany to argue against it without understanding the underlying issues.

  • Ricardius profile image

    Ricardius 5 years ago

    Even though Andre's arguments became repetitive after a while, I'm glad that we have religious idiots out there like him to bring up these issues. I feel like I've learned quite a bit by reading these comments. Thanks Fatfist!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Thanks for reading the article, Pete..

  • Pete Wolfe profile image

    Pete Wolfe 5 years ago from NJ

    Wow, alot of comments. Interesting article though, thanks.

  • ScienceOfLife profile image

    ScienceOfLife 5 years ago

    I think Andre has serious learning difficulties. Maybe he's been told his whole life that he's 'special'.

  • Jonas James profile image

    Jonas James 5 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

    Thanks Andre! I really enjoy these opportunities to watch fatfist chew you up and spit you out.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Andre,

    “If you cannot see it, it isn't there, right? He can claim it is there, but you need to look to verify.”

    Wrong! We covered this before and this the last time I will address this:

    I cannot see any stars in the Andromeda galaxy. It doesn’t mean a single doesn’t exist there. Nobody is required to verify anything. We don’t verify tables and bananas like they do in Religion. In science existence is a Hypothesis. Phenomenon is a Theory. Go and re-read where I’ve explained this many times. I don’t give a shit if you don’t want to understand it....it’s irrelevant to any argument you make.

    “If I claim unicorns exist, then you will want me to show you one, otherwise”

    No way, moron!!!!

    Only brain-dead morons make claims of existence. In science we HYPOTHESIZE existence. Do not argue about existence here anymore until you learn the Scientific Method inside-out and upside-down. Your post will be instantly deleted!

    “Unicorns are NOT perceivable”

    Neither are atoms or molecules. So according to your stupid Religion, they don’t exist. Furthermore, since a human is made from atoms and molecules, a human is not perceivable either....ergo, according to you, humans don’t exist. Get lost, Andre!

    “A triangle is a shape, NOT an object.”

    It is impossible to draw and measure any concept, like shape. Can you draw love? Only objects can be illustrated, measured, etc. You are brain-dead!

    “That wooden thing you call 'a triangle'”

    That’s not a triangle, you idiot.....that’s a piece of wood, period! Triangles don’t exist.....neither do 2014 Corvettes, but they are still objects which are illustrated, measured, modelled, simulated, etc. Existence has nothing to do with objecthood.

    I am done repeating myself a million times.....you are outta here. Ask Bill to come here if he has anything new to offer.

  • Andre Jacobs profile image

    Andre Jacobs 5 years ago from Gangneung

    @ fatfist

    What do you mean? You are paying me for this session aren't you? You asked me to come back here. Didn't you?

    "If it doesn’t have to be perceived, then you would REMOVE the word ‘perceived’ from your defn. You can’t because it MUST be perceived."

    Perceivable ..... *sighs* .... my head hurts. This is kindergarten stuff man. If your friend claims he has a sandwich and you question that he does, and he points to an empty space next to him and says "There it is." IS there a sandwich or not? If you cannot see it, it isn't there, right? He can claim it is there, but you need to look to verify. If I claim unicorns exist, then you will want me to show you one, otherwise ......? Unicorns are NOT perceivable = Unicorns are not objects BECAUSE existence cannot be verified through perception. This is the basis of the scientific method. Among sane people anyway ....

    "A triangle is an object that doesn’t exist....for the millionth time!"

    Ha ha ha ha .... so you are allowed to troll on your own forum, but I'm not.

    A triangle is a shape, NOT an object. An object can be triangular. That wooden thing you call 'a triangle' is actually shorthand for 'piece of wood shaped like a triangle'. Without the wood, there would be no triangle.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Just tell Bill to get his ass over here and defend his own arguments. I will not play third party "he said she said" messenger games here.

  • Andre Jacobs profile image

    Andre Jacobs 5 years ago from Gangneung

    @ Fatfist

    Regarding water. I sent Bill Allen a message to find out what he said and why. Will let you know what he says.

    I did not claim water is ONLY a concept, since it is not an 'either or' situation. Things are not simply objects OR concepts.

    Water is a material substance, but it is not an object. It has physical properties, which makes it a liquid. Air is also not an object, even though it has physical properties. It is a gas. Gasses and liguids are not objects.

    You being scientifically minded and all, I thought you knew that.

    Light is also not an object, even though it too has physical properties. Is it getting too complicated for you now, or are you still with me on this?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Andre,

    “How the hell do you define a concept without involving an observer? Please demonstrate.”

    Already demonstrated here millions of times....with plenty examples. I already warned you that trolling is banned here. I will no longer allow you to repeat your debunked nonsense ad infinitum. This place cannot be used for your therapy sessions.

    “POTENTIAL as in not BEING perceived right now, but if an observer did come along, he/she must be ABLE TO observe it. Clear enough for you?”

    If it doesn’t have to be perceived, then you would REMOVE the word ‘perceived’ from your defn. You can’t because it MUST be perceived. You fool nobody! Besides, your defn is circular.

    “an object must first EXIST before you can call it an object.”

    Trolling!!!

    A triangle is an object that doesn’t exist....for the millionth time!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Andre Jacobs,

    “with 'head' you made my point that definitions are arbitrary and dependent on the person that defines, rather than on what is being defined.”

    Exactly, only idiots attempt to define objects, like ‘head’ and ‘banana’. Objects have NO meaning whatsoever. Objects can at best be DESCRIBED. Only CONCEPTS can be defined objectively without invoking an observer. You must have finally read my article:

    https://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lan...

    “Object: something material that may be perceived by the senses.”

    'something' AND 'material' are synonyms for OBJECT. Your def is circular. Epic fail.

    “'May be' implies that this something may NOT be perceived at certain times.”

    Then at those times it’s not perceived, it’s NOT an object, as per your defn. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways.

    “Implying that it is still there even though it is NOT being perceived.”

    To be an object it MUST be perceived.....otherwise you would have REMOVED the word ‘perceive’ from the defn. Basic reasoning....Ha ha....LOL. too funny!

    Andre: “If something is perceivable, it can be called an object. “

    Andre: “The definition does NOT state that something needs to BE perceived to be called an object?”

    What an idiot. You qualified it with an IF. If perceived....then object! So yes....your defn does indeed state it MUST be perceived. You can’t have it both ways.

    “The object exists even if it is not BEING perceived.”

    Indeed, perception has NOTHING to do with objecthood or existence. SO PLEASE REMOVE IT FROM YOUR DEFINITION ASAP! It makes your defn subjective. See....even your Priest Bill Allen defined exist as:

    Exist: physical presence (object with location)

    “Yip, that's what I have been saying. “

    Then start saying it.....repeat after me:

    Object: that which has shape

    Exist: physical presence (an object having location)

    "I am not responding to your goons anymore."

    Threats won't get you anywhere here.

  • Andre Jacobs profile image

    Andre Jacobs 5 years ago from Gangneung

    @ Fatfist

    How many guys to you have to send out off the bathroom when you want to take a dump? They are comin out your arse there mate.

    Well done genius. While you were playing with 'head' you made my point that definitions are arbitrary and dependent on the person that defines, rather than on what is being defined.

    Are you hysterically blind again? Look at this definition again:

    Object: something material that may be perceived by the senses.

    'May be' implies that this something may NOT be perceived at certain times. Implying that it is still there even though it is NOT being perceived. It is however POSSIBLE to perceive it. That is what 'may be' SAYS. What it suggests/implies is that the object is still there even if NOT perceived.

    Calm down Fatfist. Your hysterics is making you look stupid ..... again.

    You get it now? If something is perceivable, it can be called an object. The definition does NOT state that something needs to BE perceived to be called an object? Get it? The object exists even if it is not BEING perceived. You feel all snug and comfy now? No-one is trying to make your world disappear.

    "Exactly! No thing can be defined objectively. It must be described using the observer’s sensory system, biases, purpose, subjectivity, relations/associations, etc."

    Yip, that's what I have been saying. So what are we disagreeing about?

    I am curious. Are you living in a Mormon commune and you are the only one with the right to think?

    I am not responding to your goons anymore. It is your responsibility to educate them. Not mine.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Otium, .....ha, well Andre has great ills....great pains. The only thing I can do to make him feel better is to delete this article. He won't ever listen to reason though. These type of personalities were born to chase their tails in circles forever. All his buddies in the Philosophy forums abandoned this deranged lunatic. Nobody will come by to help make his case for him because Andre doesn't have any arguments, except to say:

    “Umm, duh...an object MUST be separated by space all around it in order to be an object....oh, umm...but wait a sec....a head doesn’t need to be separated by space all around because we can define a head to be an object.”

    Tires on a car aren't separated by space all around, so they aren't objects according to Andre. Neither is the baby Andre's wife gave birth to. But when Andre cut the umbelical chord....POOF....the concept baby surreptitiously materialized into an object in a single frame of the Universal Movie (i.e. in ZERO TIME). Talk about God's Creation!

    I mean WOW!!!! Incredible lunacy. I can’t remember the last time I’ve encountered such stupidity.

    @PK....read Andre's arguments again.

  • PrometheusKid profile image

    PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

    fatfist is mad lol.

  • Otium profile image

    Otium 5 years ago from South of North/ East of West

    Jesus, Fatfist, I thought Andre broke camp and headed home weeks ago! The fishin' must have been worse elsewhere, I guess...

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Well, Dude.....he is really pissed because the Scientific definition of object & exist destroy his whole Religion of Mathematics. So he is obligated to troll here and do his best to convince everyone otherwise. He is no different than a Jehovah’s Witness who trolls around the neighborhood.

    What’s shocking is that he alleges objects have some Grand Cosmic Meaning to them; i.e. heads must have a brain....hands must have arms with elbows....and other nonsense.

    Who gave objects meaning....God?

    But the funny thing is: just ask any of these clowns to define spacetime, time, 0D particle, energy, force, field, event horizon, quantum fluctuation, wave, wavicle, time dilation, warped space, etc.......and they get extremely offended and angry. But they have no problem coming here to define heads, apples, chairs, coconuts, chewing gum, etc.

    Andre....

    Objects have NO inherent meanings in the Universe. Did God give meaning to a planet, a flower, a human, a rock? When you give meanings to objects, like a bananas, then you end up looking like an idiot...no different than Banana-Man Ray Comfort. Did we already forget about this fanatic looney from a few years ago?

    You don't understand the alleged “meaning” of an object, you just visualize the entity. The object is that which you see before you, taken purely at face value without any subjective relations, comparisons or assumptions. Any mental relation or comparisons you make of the head to a brain we refer to as "understanding". This (understanding/comparison) is not what you point at; it’s not ‘the’ head. The object ‘head’ is what you point at....and is devoid of any meaning.

    An object has a single property: shape. In a Scientific Hypothesis we don't define objects. We illustrate them or at best “describe” their attributes that will be referenced by the Theory. Before you describe a chair, before you tell the ET what a chair is used for, how it was built, why you made it or what it is made of or how it moves, you must point to it and say "chair". Now you can use the chair as an ACTOR in your Theory to explain WHY the victim died with blunt trauma to the head.

  • profile image

    El Dude 5 years ago

    This Andre has to be the biggest moron I've ever seen. He can't even grasp what an object is. How does this guy tie his shoelaces in the morning? With magical concepts?!

    Spoooooky!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Andre Jacobs,

    “Head: the upper or anterior division of the animal body that contains the brain (MW)”

    Again, this is subjective to an observer who differentiates upper/lower, anterior, front, back, etc. with direction/cardinatily, relation/association. There is no direction front or back to the universe. Furthermore, there are plenty of living objects having heads, but no brains.....like certain marine bacteria, cells, plants, etc. There are also non-living objects with heads.....go check out Easter Island.

    The point is: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO OBJECTIVELY DEFINE ANY OBJECT. You can at best describe it subjectively using your sensory system and your biases of “oughts” and “purposes” and other associations.

    There are only objects in reality. These objects only participate in events. It is events/actions (dynamic relations) or static relations which we conceive of and define. Objects have NO meanings or purposes. Only Religion ascribes meanings and purposes to objects...i.e. God is life, love, redemption, the father, son and holy ghost located up in Heaven.

    Objects are what you point to or illustrate. Then use them as actors in your theory to explain a phenomenon....i.e. the head (of a human, statue, plant, bacteria, sperm....whatever) separated because......blah blah.

    Whatever parts (brains, cells, etc.) the object consists of is irrelevant to the instant theory. If a theory has to do with brains....then the ‘brain’ is the actor of that theory....NOT the head!

    Andre......you have no clue about the Scientific Method.

    “You cannot define ANYTHING objectively “

    Exactly! No thing can be defined objectively. It must be described using the observer’s sensory system, biases, purpose, subjectivity, relations/associations, etc.

    “WTF? Who said they were not there before we came along?”

    You did! Read again: “Object: something material that may be perceived by the senses “

    'something' AND 'material' are synonyms for OBJECT. Your def is also circular.

    “The definition states "CAN be perceived"

    The word PERCEIVE is an action that necessitates a living observer!!!!!!!

    Without living observer to see/touch = NO PERCEPTION = Moon does NOT exist.

    The existence of the Moon is dependent on the invocation of “perception” via some living entity. How can you possibly not understand this??

  • Andre Jacobs profile image

    Andre Jacobs 5 years ago from Gangneung

    @ Fatfist

    Head: the upper or anterior division of the animal body that contains the brain (MW)

    "Then per your defn, the Earth and Moon were not objects before life with sensory systems and perception evolved here. Again, your defn fails even basic scrutiny!"

    WTF? Who said they were not there before we came along? The definition states "CAN be perceived". This says nothing about existence. It simply says that the object CAN be perceived. Cannot be perceived by the senses = NOT an object. Not hard isit?

    You cannot define ANYTHING objectively in the way you use the term. Since YOU must define it using concepts YOU need to be able to understand and experience. Not brain surgery.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Andre Jacobs,

    “Except in the definition of a head...”

    Stop the press!!!!

    You what?? You define a head? You define specific objects in your Religion?

    Ok, here you go.....please define ‘head’ or ‘coconut’ for the audience.

    It is impossible to OBJECTIVELY define objects in a Scientific context. Objects are only pointed or illustrated....and given a name. Anything else a human does with an object i.e. attempt to define it, bounce it, love it, hug it.....is all subjective. But you can shut my mouth instantly by defining ‘head’ or ‘coconut’ OBJECTIVELY as requested...LOL, this will be good.

    “Object: something material that may be perceived by the senses “

    Then per your defn, the Earth and Moon were not objects before life with sensory systems and perception evolved here. Again, your defn fails even basic scrutiny!

    “When you perceive a forest, what are you actually looking at? Can you touch a forest?”

    Just like a distant star you perceive in the night sky, you cannot touch it. So what? An object is NOT defined as “that which can be touched”. Otherwise that star, Sun, Moon, shark, etc. are not objects according to YOU. Again, your defn fails even basic scrutiny!

    “Mountain: a landmass that projects conspicuously above its surroundings and is higher than a hill.”

    LOL!!!

    So a mountain is not an object until a human goes there to measure it and compare it to hills, and is conspicuous.... and subjective nonsense like that? What a moron!

    See....I told you it is IMPOSSIBLE to objectively define any object in Science. The mountain is not even an object unless a human decrees it to be so, according to you. But it was an object when a meteor hit it before humans evolved here. You contradict yourself. Ha!

  • Andre Jacobs profile image

    Andre Jacobs 5 years ago from Gangneung

    @ Fatfist

    Cool, something I can work with ....

    "So a head on a person is not an object, according to you, because it is not separated from all sides? So a person’s head is a concept until the day comes when we chop it off??"

    Nice one. Except in the definition of a head, the neck is not included .... PER DEFINITION. No confusion here.

    Which part of the forest is NOT INCLUDED? The roots? The ground? A forest cannot BE a forest if it is NOT in the ground .... PER DEFINITION. So, how much of the ground is included?

    "So a mountain is not an object, according to you, because it is not separated from all sides? Funny!"

    And again. What constitutes a mountain? How far under the ground does a mountain go? Where does it end? When we talk about about a mountain, we are talking about the bit that sticks out of the ground. When you are talking about a forest, are you only talking about the bits that stick out? There is no confusion here as to what constitutes a mountain.

    "So a tire on a car is not an object, according to you, because it is not separated from all sides? Funny!"

    Sure, you silly twat. There is no confusion as to where the tire ends and where the rim starts.

    Don't get me wrong. I understand the argument regarding the parts that make up the forest. The problem is just that it is irrelevant.

    Forest: a dense growth of trees and underbrush covering a large tract (Mirriam Webster On-line)

    OR : Complex ecosystem in which trees are the dominant life-form. (Concise Encyclopedia)

    Object: something material that may be perceived by the senses (Mirriam Webster) = crappy definition

    When you perceive a forest, what are you actually looking at? Can you touch a forest? Do I really need to spell this out to you?

    Now check this out: Mountain: a landmass that projects conspicuously above its surroundings and is higher than a hill.

    Do you see the lack of 'of' in the definition of a mountain? A forest clearly relates to a collection of things (trees) PER DEFINITION, whereas none of the other things you mention (head, tire, mountain) needs to be defined as a collection of things ......

    Why do I have to explain this to you?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Andre Jacobs,

    "If it resolves to a shape, then it's an object by definition."

    Exactly!!

    All words are lexical concepts. All concepts are necessarily DEFINED. It is impossible to conceive of any word in language without a definition. Here, educate yourself before you continue to flaunt your ignorance:

    https://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lan...

    Remember....this ^^^ is the article that shut the mouths of everyone in PIS....including your God, David Huisjen!

    An object has meaning BY DEFINITION of the word ‘object’. If you can’t define ‘object’, then you don’t understand what an object is and cannot use the word in any sentence....never ever. Got it?

    “Wow!”

    Indeed, it’s a wake-up call for you. If you only learned language & grammar in school instead of picking your nose, you wouldn’t be going thru this steeeeeeeeep learning curve.

    You are a lone warrior, Andre. Your Priests/mentors/sponsors have all abandoned you in the Loony Asylum after they conceded these 2 formidable definitions that destroy all Religions:

    Object: that which has shape

    Exist: physical presence; something somewhere; object with location

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Andre Jacobs,

    “A forest is NOT an object simply because it has shape. Not all things that have shape are objects.”

    Why? Why is a forest not an object? You didn’t offer an argument....you just decreed it. Again, you cannot reference anything with shape which is not an object.

    “A forest is clearly NOT an object because you cannot point to its boundaries.”

    Ohhhhhhhh, this is your argument????

    Ok....here, look...I just pointed to this forest’s boundaries.....take your finger out of your butt and do the same:

    http://very-bored.com/pics3/hearts/heart-shaped-fo...

    Noooooo....I said POINT to the boundaries of the forest....not to put your finger in your mouth!

    Your argument has just been “falsified”, Andre, according to your Religion of Mathematical Falsifiability.

    “Where is the forest-object's lower boundary? When you uproot all the trees and hang them from the crane, it is NOT a forest anymore.”

    A forest is an object whether it’s hanging from a crane or from your head. It has shape. You point to it or illustrate it and give it a NAME.....any name you like.

    “The moon is seperated from space ON ALL SIDES. What the moon IS is complete within the boundary. “

    So a head on a person is not an object, according to you, because it is not separated from all sides? So a person’s head is a concept until the day comes when we chop it off?? What a moron!

    So a mountain is not an object, according to you, because it is not separated from all sides? Funny!

    So a tire on a car is not an object, according to you, because it is not separated from all sides? Funny!

    So as long as you hold the beer bottle in your hand, the bottle is not an object because it’s not separated by space all around? And when you place the bottle on the table it’s still not an object? The bottle is only an object when God makes it magically float in the air forever? IS THIS YOUR PROFOUND IDIOCY??

    So when your baby was born it wasn’t an object until the doctor handed you the scissors to cut the umbilical chord?? So your wife gave birth to a fu**ing concept?? The instant you cut the chord this concept magically REIFED itself into an object?? THIS IS YOUR STUPID ARGUMENT??? I am going to have a word with your wife, Andre. OMG, wait till she hears this....

    See, you are chasing your tail in circles because you try so hard to protect your retarded Religion.

    Andre.....you are on YOUR OWN arguing with the mirror.

    Your beloved Priests/mentors/sponsors, Bill Allen, Joegen Baclor.....and even your newly-found love, David Aiken, ....all have abandoned you in the Loony Asylum. They have forgotten about you. Even these 3 clowns understand that an object has shape......and that ‘exist’ means “physical presence” i.e. object with location.

    No wonder they don’t even attempt to support your stupid idiotic arguments. No wonder they are scared to post here again....they cannot refute the Scientific Definition of OBJECT.

  • Andre Jacobs profile image

    Andre Jacobs 5 years ago from Gangneung

    @ SciOffLife

    Yeah, sure .... and here is your argument: "If it resolves to a shape, then it's an object by definition."

    Wow!

  • ScienceOfLife profile image

    ScienceOfLife 5 years ago

    "That you would suspend your common sense to follow some stupid definition. Bending yourself out of shape, alienating yourself from sane people and basically sounding like a complete idiot ...... For what?"

    THIS is the deranged ramblings of a lunatic or drunkard. Try to construct an actual argument of some kind. You're not saying anything meaningful. You keep going round in circles, then getting angry.

  • Andre Jacobs profile image

    Andre Jacobs 5 years ago from Gangneung

    @ Fatfist

    Do you suffer from some kind of childhood trauma? A head injury maybe?

    Your whole argument is : An object is that which has shape. This is NOT an argument you twat. This is a definition that you have chosen, and that is so easily refuted it is laughable.

    A forest is clearly NOT an object because you cannot point to its boundaries. Yes, the group of trees have a shape. But the shape of the group of trees does NOT involve all that the group of trees are. The moon is seperated from space ON ALL SIDES. What the moon IS is complete within the boundary. Where is the forest-object's lower boundary? When you uproot all the trees and hang them from the crane, it is NOT a forest anymore. How delusional do you have to be to say stupid shit like this?

    I am done here. You are an idiot. You have proven it ten times over ....... Good luck with that.

  • Andre Jacobs profile image

    Andre Jacobs 5 years ago from Gangneung

    ScienceOffLife

    This is what I am confused about: "If it resolves to a shape, then it's an object by definition." That you would suspend your common sense to follow some stupid definition. Bending yourself out of shape, alienating yourself from sane people and basically sounding like a complete idiot ...... For what?

    Your definition is INSANE. A forest is NOT an object simply because it has shape. Not all things that have shape are objects. This is so blatantly obvious that I am thoroughly astounded by your determination to prove yourself to be some kind of lowly mental imbicile.

    Well done.

  • ScienceOfLife profile image

    ScienceOfLife 5 years ago

    I still don't get what you're so confused about.

    If it resolves to a shape, then it's an object by definition. That's it, we're done.

    Of course words are concepts! What else are they, objects?! Do you bump into words on your way to work?!

    Object: that which has shape

    Concept: that which does not have shape (quick version)

  • Andre Jacobs profile image

    Andre Jacobs 5 years ago from Gangneung

    @ScienceOrTripe

    Words aren't concepts. They refer to concepts. Words are words.

    What does it mean when you say a word 'resolves to' something else? I know what you are trying to say, but I prefer to use 'points to'. Why do you use 'resolve to'? I looked at several definitions of 'resolve to' but none makes sense in the context that you are using the expression.

    Some words refer to concepts, and others refer to objects. That is the agreed explanation, right?

    This is where I disagree. ALL words point to concepts. Some CONCEPTS are physically realizable, and some are not. The concept 'apple' has a physical manifestation, but the concept 'law' does not.

    'Apple' does not HAVE to point to a physical thing though. You use the term in general too, without pointing at a specific instance of 'apple'.

    Yes, forests have shapes. That is not the issue here. The issue is whether everything that has shape, is an object. Clearly it is not. Some things have shape without qualifying as an object. That would be things like water, clouds, a shadow a pride of lions and a forest. THIS is the issue here ... smartass.

  • ScienceOfLife profile image

    ScienceOfLife 5 years ago

    Andre, ALL words are concepts! Of course, we already understand this much. The question is, what does the word resolve to? Something outside our heads, like that 'thingy' out there we name 'apple'?

    If so, then we have resolved the word to an object (that with shape). That's it. We're done. Is this really so hard to understand?

  • ScienceOfLife profile image

    ScienceOfLife 5 years ago

    Forest:

    http://www.fopap.org/european_forest.jpg

    THIS forest has shape.

    http://very-bored.com/pics3/hearts/heart-shaped-fo...

    THIS forest has shape too. Lovely, isn't it?

  • Andre Jacobs profile image

    Andre Jacobs 5 years ago from Gangneung

    @ Fatfist

    Why a forest is not an object:

    An object, as recognized by you, is clearly dilineated. It has a boundary. A forest does not have a boundary. The shape of the group of trees may qualify as a boundary, but what about the roots? Are the roots included in this forest object? Is the ground around the roots included? A forest cannot Be without the earth is stands in, so where do you draw the line? How much of the earth beneath the trees have to be included in this Forest object?

    Is an orchard also a forest? What about a grove? What is the difference between a plantation and a forest? Are they all different kinds of objects? They are all groups of trees. Yet, they are not all forests. A forest is a concept. There is no phyisical difference between a forest, a grove, a plantation, and orchard and an arboretum. They are all groups of trees. There is only a conceptual difference.

    What about an apple? How do you tell the difference between an apple and a pear? These are clearly dilineated objects, which exist separately from space, but you have the same difficulty in saying what exactly an apple is. That is because 'apple' is also a concept. The difference between an apple and a forest, is that the apple is clearly dilineated. The dividing line is clear. Yet it is also a concept. So why is an apple an object and a forest only a concept?

    These are one of your main arguments isn't it? Yet your definition is screwing the distinction up (between objects and concepts), and mine isn't. So why the hell would I support your definition again?

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    “Seriously though? Are you functionally retarded? Please leave me out of your lame-ass posts .... Or at least have the integrity to whip me, instead of claiming to do so. "

    This reminds me of a fight I saw once, where the looser was laying on the ground all broken and bloody, still mouthing off, "You think you got me whipped? You haven't whipped me....."

    I was laughing too hard to hear the rest of it.

    "You are the reason I can't stand people and make a point of NOT engaging them."

    Guess he's making the point that he would never talk shit like this to someone's face, just hiding behind a computer.

    "How the fuck do you look yourself in the mirror? Oh, that's right ..... money. You disgust me ...."

    Interesting, you always offer large sums of money to people to refute your claims, and even have the integrity to offer to take down any Hub that isn't a rational explanation.

    I didn't know you were getting paid for this Fatfist. Where do I send the money? Whatever they're paying is not enough!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Andre Jacobs: “Seriously though? Are you functionally retarded? Please leave me out of your lame-ass posts .... Or at least have the integrity to whip me, instead of claiming to do so. You are the reason I can't stand people and make a point of NOT engaging them. I can deal with stupid. What I cannot deal with are the kinda low-lives like you that is all mouth and no guts. How the fuck do you look yourself in the mirror? Oh, that's right ..... money. You disgust me ....”

    Andre sent me the above PM which explains why he came here in a trolling fit. Andre is too embarrassed of his previous posts because he couldn’t put his money where his mouth is....i.e. to define ‘object’ & ‘exist’. Many have found our conversations very educational and use these fatfist-Andre arguments to DEFEAT others with similar contradictory reasoning as Andre.

    So yeah....Andre, if you are inadequate as a human....if you are not a man who is proud of his arguments.....if you are too embarrassed of your contradictions.....then nobody is putting a gun to your head to post here. Only little pussies bitch and complain like you do. If you want to post here again, you must present an argument.

    Having said that,.... your posts WILL continue to be used as fine examples of how to refute these often-parroted Andre-type of arguments. I hope you don’t mind, Andre, but I have also printed some of your comments and used them as supplementary material for the classes I teach. They’re awesome learning material for my students and I thank you for giving me a real life example of a primitive thinker to showcase in my classes.

    Sorry, but when you post here, it becomes publicly accessible to anyone on the net, and possibly teaching material for my students. That’s why David Huisjen, David Allen and Joegen Baclor are too embarrassed to post their contradictory crap here.....they’re little girls, not men!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Andre,

    Unlike PIS, David Huisjen and Bill Allen.....we don’t ban folks here who present arguments that can either educate us or refute our articles. We welcome this as we have NO Religion to protect. Andre admittedly has a Religion to protect.

    Here we ban idiots who consistently come to troll without any arguments.

    Andre....you will not be posting here again unless you have an argument.....and a NEW argument....no more repeating your debunked nonsense that you posted over 20 times already.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    "How about you PayPal me the money, and THEN I play with you. "

    Typical PIS ant philosopher. They want to get paid (and in advance) to not actually work, but to play.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    "The definitions you are talking about are little knives you use to limit the meaning of a word. "

    Yes, you have just defined definition.

    Definitions are limitations on a word so that it can be used in a presentation consistently.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Andre, enough is enough. No more playing here. All your arguments have been exhausted. People came here to have a discussion with you....obviously you have nothing to offer. Fourth and final warning.

  • Andre Jacobs profile image

    Andre Jacobs 5 years ago from Gangneung

    @ Fatfist

    "all concepts are CONCEIVED, never perceived." Yip, and yet 'apple' is a concept too. How do you figure that, Bubba?

    "If you can prove that you have an arm I will PayPal you $2000 USD. Can you do that?"

    I have a better idea. How about you PayPal me the money, and THEN I play with you. I would rather waste my time while getting paid, wouldn't you?

    I feel no need to prove I have an arm. Having an arm is enough.

    Your proof for existence is whether something can BE that lone object in the universe. We have talked before ..... remember?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Rational definitions are unambiguous, consistent and non-contradictory, Andre. That's why you don't have any ANTIDOTE for the Scientific definitions of object & exist. That's why you can't sleep at night.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    Andre the Midget: "Definitions are not rational, theories are. Definitions describe, they don't explain."

    No definitions define. Theories explain!

  • Andre Jacobs profile image

    Andre Jacobs 5 years ago from Gangneung

    @ Monkeymind

    I see only Fatfist understands this game .... Thank you for the explanation there. I was in school too. We didn't call them dogpiles though .... Different country, different langauge, same idea.

    Definitions are not rational, theories are. Definitions describe, they don't explain.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    Dog pile on rabbit is not sexual at all, it's purely a violent sport.

    "No thanks. Go teabag some of your gay friends that care ...."

    Yet, here you are...Slow day with the PIS ants?

    "That is actually the definition I agree with."

    We don't agree with definitions, we accept them for purposes of your theory if they are rational.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Stop trolling Andre,....read my last comments to you.....all concepts are CONCEIVED, never perceived. Stop the strawmen, ok? Misrepresenting my posts shows your desperation.

    "prove existence"

    How do you do that? What does PROVE mean?

    If you can prove that you have an arm I will PayPal you $2000 USD. Can you do that?

  • Andre Jacobs profile image

    Andre Jacobs 5 years ago from Gangneung

    @ Fatfist

    Are you sure you are not a woman? Now I am trolling after YOU commented about what I wrote.

    LOL .... hang on. You prove existence by claiming your single-object-universe supplies the proof, but I need to define exist. You can create universes with lone objects in, but I have to define existence ... LOLOLOL ..... How long were you in rehab for?

    If you consider that all we have is perception, then what exists is anything that is perceived.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Andre,

    "OUR universe is the one where lone objects DO NOT exist."

    Oh, what do you mean by 'exist'?

    "It is impossible for your experiment NOT to be a thought experiment."

    And now you are trolling with these unjustified claims. You can't back up your empty claims, so enough trolling, ok?

  • Andre Jacobs profile image

    Andre Jacobs 5 years ago from Gangneung

    @ Monkeymind

    "Dog pile on the rabbit. Dog pile on the rabbit."

    No thanks. Go teabag some of your gay friends that care ....

    "The one making the presentation provides a definition for the Key Terms on which their presentation depends."

    Yeah, that's what I did. That is actually the definition I agree with. *Gasp*

    @ Fatfist

    What's wrong with you? Does your mother know that you fantasize about other men's semen?

    "I explained WHY it wasn't. If you disagree, please justify your claim that it MIGHT be."

    Man, you need to get off the wacky-backy ..... OUR universe is the one where lone objects DO NOT exist. It is impossible for your experiment NOT to be a thought experiment.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Andre,

    "So, this universe of yours with only ONE object existing is NOT a thought experiment?"

    I explained WHY it wasn't. If you disagree, please justify your claim that it MIGHT be. Otherwise, please stop these trolling posts, ok?

  • Andre Jacobs profile image

    Andre Jacobs 5 years ago from Gangneung

    @ Fatfist

    "I have NEVER EVER EVER ran a single thought experiment! But you are welcome to justify otherwise....LOL."

    I missed this part among all the other crap you were slinging. So, this universe of yours with only ONE object existing is NOT a thought experiment? What are you on?

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    "Whose definition would you appeal to then?"

    The one making the presentation provides a definition for the Key Terms on which their presentation depends.

    " I don't know why all you other jokers are on my back":

    Dog pile on the rabbit. Dog pile on the rabbit.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Andre Jacobs,

    “WHO is defining?”

    ALL words are lexical concepts (i.e. of a language). Some resolve to objects via a referent while the rest are concepts. All concepts are defined otherwise words cannot have meanings and no communication is possible. All concepts are defined by humans,.... not by God and handed to us in a Dictionary of Commandments, like you insinuate.

    “WHOSE perception is used to 'create' the CONCEPTS you are using to define with? How do you know what a 'that' is if you do not have experience of a 'that'?”

    LOL! Ha ha! What an idiot!

    Concepts are CONCEIVED...C-O-N-C-E-I-V-E-D....do you understand this much?? Only perceptions are perceived. Words & definitions are conceived.....and impossible to be perceived or experienced or known. This is only a CONCEPTUAL issue of critical reason....not of sensory experiment. Andre, you are a little stupid girl who goes down on her knees, opens her mouth to swallow the spunk of Joegen Baclor and Bill Allen. I can’t believe you swallow this filthy shit. Get off this stuff ASAP....it has rotted your brain!

    “There can be no concepts such as 'somewhere' or 'something' without an observer.”

    Of course! Yes! Bingo! All concepts are CONCEIVED by humans. We conceive of the concepts which we use to represent what is out there in reality. As part of these conceptions, we DEFINE them rigorously and unambiguously so that we can use them in sentences to communicate.

    Idiot Andre still doesn’t understand the diff b/w object & concept. Here Andre,.....educate yourself and read what Bill Allen did NOT want you to read so that he can continue to pump his balls and drain his spunk down your throat:

    https://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lan...

  • Andre Jacobs profile image

    Andre Jacobs 5 years ago from Gangneung

    @ MonkE

    "Perception is bottom up (sensory processing) and top down )concept processing er...knowledge)."

    I was talking about sensory perception ..... Is that better? Did your mama not teach you to ask if you don't understand?

  • Andre Jacobs profile image

    Andre Jacobs 5 years ago from Gangneung

    @ Monkemind

    You are funny ..... So, I am not allowed to use a dictionary? I am sorry I did not post without mentioning the source ... smite me indeed.

    Whose definition would you appeal to then?

    @ Jonas

    I got an alert that Fatfist used my name in vain. I just replied to him. I don't know why all you other jokers are on my back. And I am bored? LOL

  • Andre Jacobs profile image

    Andre Jacobs 5 years ago from Gangneung

    @ FatList

    "“It is impossible to define OBJECT or EXIST without invoking observers“

    Object: that which has shape

    Exist: something somewhere; physical presence (an object having location)"

    WHO is defining? WHOSE perception is used to 'create' the concepts you are using to define with?

    How do you know what a 'that' is if you do not have experience of a 'that'? There can be no concepts such as 'somewhere' or 'something' without an observer.

    I am going to ignore all the other crap you wrote.

  • Jonas James profile image

    Jonas James 5 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

    "What was Jonas talking about? Seperation? Seperation of what? A divorce? An amputation? Have you ever heard the word 'context' mentioned?"

    Andre, these issues have been covered multiple times before. You understand perfectly what the definition of shape is from your involvement on this hub. Obviously PIS is a little dull at the moment so you decided to come and troll this hub again.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    And smite him twice for using...

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perception

    ...without attribution.

    Also for these:

    Appeal to Popular definition, Appeal to authority, Appeal from Ignoramousness and Appeal from a banana.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    Andre the Midget: "What I am talking about = Perception: the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.

    What you are talking about = Perception: immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities; insight; intuition; discernment: an artist of rare perception."

    Perception is bottom up (sensory processing) and top down )concept processing er...knowledge).

    Interesting that a mental midget has such extraordinary powers to read my mind and "know" what I am talking about!

    Yea, verily, smite him again, and again, oh mighty fist! For he knows not that which he speaketh.

  • Andre Jacobs profile image

    Andre Jacobs 5 years ago from Gangneung

    @ El Dud

    Seriously? From the context of what I wrote "We do not only use our brains to define words. What you perceive as an object, or background, also depend on the same brain. Without a brain there is ...... Who knows?"

    You cannot conclude that I am NOT actually talking about knowledge, but by preception?

    What was Jonas talking about? Seperation? Seperation of what? A divorce? An amputation? Have you ever heard the word 'context' mentioned?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Andre Jacobs,

    “It is impossible to define OBJECT or EXIST without invoking observers“

    Object: that which has shape

    Exist: something somewhere; physical presence (an object having location)

    It is impossible to have observers in these and any Scientific Definitions. You contradict yourself because you are a stupid Religious fool belonging to a fanatical Fundamentalist Religious group PIS, Andre,....and you even admitted it yourself and proved it on the record....here, read what YOU posted:

    Andre: “I am stupid”

    Andre: “Mine [Religion] is not that clearly defined, but I also believe.”

    Andre: “I KNOW I am stupid, so I look for the 'stupid' in what I do.”

    Andre: “PIS....consists of individuals with their own beliefs”

    “[Single Object Universe ]....And like all thought experiments, this one is also bogus.”

    Exactly! Bingo! Of course, idiot....ALL thought experiments are bogus!!! That’s what Einstein, Hawking, Saga, Pastor Lemaintre, Dawkins, etc. did. They all ran contradictory consummated event scenarios in their brain that were IMPOSSIBLE to show as a movie on the big screen. They couldn’t even illustrate them on paper for Christ’s sake. These morons couldn’t even visualize frame-by-frame what they saying.

    I have NEVER EVER EVER ran a single thought experiment! But you are welcome to justify otherwise....LOL.

    A single object universe is NOT a thought experiment....NOT an event....NOT an action/verb, you stupid brain-dead clown. It’s STATIC. Not DYNAMIC (i.e. event/experiment). All you have to do to justify it as a “thought experiment” is to show MOTION for a single object. If no motion, then NO experiment of any kind...Ha!

    You don’t even understand grammar, language, concepts, objects or any words. You are brain-dead, like all you clowns in PIS who claim that nothing exists. No wonder you are nothing but a choir boy who opens his mouth for this Priest to ram his penis down his throat.

    “Observer-dependent shape definition and your Observer-dependent thought experiment, and show him what a nut you are.”

    Of course, that’s what ALL your definitions have been so far...you are on the record. Calling yourself a ‘nut’ doesn’t add anything more than the “idiot” you called yourself earlier, right?

    “convince him that clouds, forests and shadows are objects too”

    Only Priests go door to door trying to convince. A human can explain what they say. Yeah Andre, you tried to convince, but that’s irrelevant because your definitions explicitly invoked observers.....some multiple observers. All contradictory.

    “I have been thinking about you bunch of nuts”

    Sorry to cause you so much stress and keep you awake at night. You can’t even get it up for your wife anymore. Actually, I’m lying....you were never able to get it up for your wife because you are a little girl. You are not a man.....you were never a man. Only a REAL man can come here and justify his argument. Any men in your household, Andre? Didn’t think so!

    Perhaps your Priests Joegen Baclor and Bill Allen who feed their spunk down your throat can come here and rescue you. But they are terrified...LOL. Are they just good for feeding you spunk? Better taste good or else you’re getting Royally Shafted for no reason!

  • Andre Jacobs profile image

    Andre Jacobs 5 years ago from Gangneung

    @ monkeyminds

    What I am talking about = Perception: the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.

    What you are talking about = Perception: immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities; insight; intuition; discernment: an artist of rare perception.

  • profile image

    El Dude 5 years ago

    Andre Jacobs, just two comments ago:

    "Who knows?"

    Andre Jacobs, just one comment ago:

    "Who said anything about knowledge?"

    STUNNING.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    Er...uh...perception compares one's limited senses to their limited knowledge, ergo Kill the Observer!

  • Andre Jacobs profile image

    Andre Jacobs 5 years ago from Gangneung

    @ El Dud

    Who said anything about knowledge? I was talking about perception.

  • profile image

    El Dude 5 years ago

    It has nothing to DO with knowledge, Andre you pea-brain. Definitions, remember? You have an intellectual capacity and attention span of an 8-year-old.

  • Andre Jacobs profile image

    Andre Jacobs 5 years ago from Gangneung

    @ Jonas

    "It is a given that we use our brains to define words. Andre is simply not smart enough to see how this is completely irrelevant to the actual definition! That an object has shape is not dependent on any observer, it has shape by virtue of its separation from a background."

    We do not only use our brains to define words. What you perceive as an object, or background, also depend on the same brain. Without a brain there is ...... Who knows?

  • Jonas James profile image

    Jonas James 5 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

    “It is impossible to define OBJECT or EXIST without invoking observers...”

    It is a given that we use our brains to define words. Andre is simply not smart enough to see how this is completely irrelevant to the actual definition! That an object has shape is not dependent on any observer, it has shape by virtue of its separation from a background.

  • Andre Jacobs profile image

    Andre Jacobs 5 years ago from Gangneung

    @ Fatfist

    "All you need to do is showcase his contradictions in his statements, just as I did with Andre Jacobs."

    I guess I may have missed those posts.

    "Actually, Andre is indeed convinced and is smart enough to understand it is impossible to define OBJECT & EXIST by invoking observers."

    LOL ..... It is impossible to define OBJECT or EXIST without invoking observers. Fatfist is simply not smart enough to see how he IS exactly doing that when he 'defines' both these concepts.

    "Only a Single Object Universe can be used to define an object. "

    And like all thought experiments, this one is also bogus. Simply because you, the Observer, is always present ..... even in your thought experiment, Fatfist.

    "Ask him to define ‘object’ and ‘exist’."

    And then after he does that, hit him with your Observer-dependent shape definition and your Observer-dependent thought experiment, and show him what a nut you are. And if he is still talking to you after that, convince him that clouds, forests and shadows are objects too ....

    "There is no provision for time in the definition of SHAPE."

    And that's how you know you have a bogus defintion. And also that you believe in god, the timeless shapely one.

    "People will ALWAYS resort to irrationality and bullshit to protect their Religion at all costs."

    Yip, exactly like you do, Fatfist.

    "Then he should be able to define ‘object’ and ‘exist’."

    And he will probably define it quite well too. Except it is not YOUR definition, so it is obviously not the right one. Since yours is timeless and shapely, and handed down by god.

    I have been thinking about you bunch of nuts over yonder in E-rational Science. I really admire your spunk. And that goes for Bill too. You definitely have the Questioning Gene, which is awesome. Unfortunately you are simply just not smart enough to figure it out for yourselves.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    "but it's kind of shameful to deny the real concrete consequences of the persecution Turing suffered due to his homosexuality!"

    Nobody is denying it, and it was harder for people to cope back then than it is today. But homosexuality was not responsible for his dementia and ultimate suicide. Read up on his struggles with math, God and absolute certainty. This drove him insane. He had many bigger issues to deal with than just homosexuality.

  • profile image

    Asno Mudo 5 years ago from London

    In fact, Bertrand Russell almost went mad, while Turing, Cantor, Godel, Boltzmann and others committed suicide after relentlessly searching for absolutes.

    Cool piece of hyperbole ... but it's kind of shameful to deny the real concrete consequences of the persecution Turing suffered due to his homosexuality!