Philosophical fundamentals; the important ideas.

[r6r6]

Gem--It's simply untrue that you use dictionary (or philosophical or mathematical or physics) definitions.

Gem, you need to expand your narrow vision, and learn how to not only use a dictionary for any word Ive stated, but how to extrapolate outward/expand, to intuit what other words and concepts are synonyms.

Occupied space = non-occupied space = unoccupied space.
I presume your and adult and should not have much difffifculty making the intuitive leap between these three similar concepts.

It's unreasonable to expect people to comprehend invented terms with arbitrarily assigned meanings.

Ditto the above and get back to me when you can grasp those three. Please do not strain your brain in the process.

The contradiction is, in the first part of this post, you said it's easy to refer to a dictionary to find definitions, but here above you say your terms are beyond people's everyday norm.

Ditto my above and please do not strain your brain.

I've never come across that 'fact'. You'd have to provide a proof.

If someone doesnt understand they can ask. Your approach here some many lines later is to sort of ask but still not really, rathere you give a lot of hubris(?).

have given it to you specifically in another thread and also given you humans and evolution correlaries, yet you still give a lot of hubris(?) like all of the above. Ditto all of my aboves.

Here is the link to the geometric version of synergy, since you question it but do not actually ask for clarity. Rather you dictate to me. Sad :--(

OK, blame other people if you must, but it's not reasonable to expect people to understand the meaning of capitalised and colour-coded words.

If others have a question they can ask. They can use any one of a number of dictainaries, encylcopedieas etc.....your dictation to me in a few differrent threads is not helpful to any understanding. In fact it takes away from understanding anything Ive stated and adds uneccessary hubris(?) to the thread. Sad :--( imho

OK, I guess you'll see it a a fault in others, but it's not reasonable in light of your unusual communication style.

I a few threads now, you fault only me for any and every word, concept etc I exrpress...ergo I think there is ample evidence that you have ego blockage to r6. Sad :--(

Ditto all my above when you want have rationally logical disscusion regarding anything Ive stated. Please use a distionary Gem. You may learn something about expanding your mind, intuition, imagination, syntax, coding, parenthisis etc.....

You appear to me to be making a mountain out of a ant hill for not rationally logical reason.

Ditto all the above starting as I did with my original opening statements regarding occupied space. Your making communication more difficult not aiding in comprehension of concepts as stated.

Do you drive an automobile? Maybe youve looked for a parking spot close to doors of store and they were all occupied space, ergo you had to find a non-occupied space/spot futher from the door.

Do I need to lead you by the hand through many examples of non-occupied space as found within the scale of everyday human experience, before going into more cosmic scales of existence Gem?

Ditto all my above Gem, and please do not strain your brain in your attempts to understand anything Ive stated or in asking a question.

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Gem, you need to expand your narrow vision, and learn how to not only use a dictionary for any word Ive stated, but how to extrapolate outward/expand, to intuit what other words and concepts are synonyms.

I have to intuit what you mean. That's not a realistic expectation.

Occupied space = non-occupied space = unoccupied space.
I presume your and adult and should not have much difffifculty making the intuitive leap between these three similar concepts.

I could take a guess just as well as the next bloke.

Ditto the above and get back to me when you can grasp those three. Please do not strain your brain in the process.

Ditto my above and please do not strain your brain.

If someone doesnt understand they can ask. Your approach here some many lines later is to sort of ask but still not really, rathere you give a lot of hubris(?).

have given it to you specifically in another thread and also given you humans and evolution correlaries, yet you still give a lot of hubris(?) like all of the above. Ditto all of my aboves.

Here is the link to the geometric version of synergy, since you question it but do not actually ask for clarity. Rather you dictate to me. Sad :--(

If others have a question they can ask. They can use any one of a number of dictainaries, encylcopedieas etc.....your dictation to me in a few differrent threads is not helpful to any understanding. In fact it takes away from understanding anything Ive stated and adds uneccessary hubris(?) to the thread. Sad :--( imho

I a few threads now, you fault only me for any and every word, concept etc I exrpress...ergo I think there is ample evidence that you have ego blockage to r6. Sad :--(

Ditto all my above when you want have rationally logical disscusion regarding anything Ive stated. Please use a distionary Gem. You may learn something about expanding your mind, intuition, imagination, syntax, coding, parenthisis etc.....

You appear to me to be making a mountain out of a ant hill for not rationally logical reason.

Ditto all the above starting as I did with my original opening statements regarding occupied space. Your making communication more difficult not aiding in comprehension of concepts as stated.

Do you drive an automobile? Maybe youve looked for a parking spot close to doors of store and they were all occupied space, ergo you had to find a non-occupied space/spot futher from the door.

Do I need to lead you by the hand through many examples of non-occupied space as found within the scale of everyday human experience, before going into more cosmic scales of existence Gem?

Ditto all my above Gem, and please do not strain your brain in your attempts to understand anything Ive stated or in asking a question.

r6

I find this use of language easy to understand.

[cathutch]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

123, ABC, thats how easy Universe can be.

That I agree. Shall I add: "and the rest". (123, ABC, thats how easy Universe [and the rest] can be).

Let's take ABC for instance.
Let's have A as the unknown (the rest).
Get rid of B & C.
What's left?

You should avoid anything more than that; for your own sake I mean.


Note: it is good to know colors (also numbers and that sort of things) as principles; but they are not that necessary, substantially wise I mean. Good job anyway.

[Gem]

That proof is ridiculous.

"Two triangles may be combined in such a manner as to create the tetrahedron,"

If you have two triangles cut from paper, you can NOT make a tetrahedron from them.

The diagram showed two 'z shapes' (not triangles) that can be combined to form the 6 edges of tetrahedron.

Since it did not "combine two triangles", the overall statement, "Two triangles may be combined in such a manner as to create the tetrahedron, a figure volumetrically embraced by four triangles. Therefore one plus one seemingly equals four. " Is untrue. Ridiculous.

[r6r6]

Universe has not purpose other than the purpose humans apply to it.

Universe has not meaning other than the meaning humans apply to it.

Purpose nor meaning occupy space ergo can have not complementary shape.

A chair occupies space and has a shape/geometry.

Common sense does not occupy space, but 7 billion humans do.

r6

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Occupied space has a complementary Shape/Pattern/Geometry etc.....

[r6r6]

...."The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe.

.... The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity entirely new properties appear.

......Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. We can now see that the whole becomes not merely more, but very different from the sum of its parts. (Anderson 1972)".......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergen...l_DSC03570.jpg

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Universe has not purpose other than the purpose humans apply to it.
Universe has not meaning other than the meaning humans apply to it.
Purpose nor meaning occupy space ergo can have not complementary shape.
A chair occupies space and has a shape/geometry.
Common sense does not occupy space, but 7 billion humans do.

r6

[333xforever]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

...."The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe.
The point is useless. It's the equivalent of saying, we are alive, because we are not dead.

.... The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity entirely new properties appear.
What's the question?


......Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. We can now see that the whole becomes not merely more, but very different from the sum of its parts. (Anderson 1972)".......
Of course 'biology' is not 'chemistry', but they do correlate through each other. In this way, they are the sum of it's parts. But that is not the point. The point is, there is no point.

__________________________________________________ __________________

[r6r6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

...."Per his definition of emergence, Corning also addresses emergence and evolution: "[In] evolutionary processes, causation is iterative; effects are also causes.

..... And this is equally true of the synergistic effects produced by emergent systems. In other words, emergence itself... has been the underlying cause of the evolution of emergent phenomena in biological evolution; it is the synergies produced by organized systems that are the key." (Corning 2002)".......

Originally Posted by r6r6r

...."The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe.
.... The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity entirely new properties appear.
......Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. We can now see that the whole becomes not merely more, but very different from the sum of its parts. (Anderson 1972)".......
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#mediaviewer/File:Termite_Cathedral_DSC03570.jpg[/url

Universe has not meaning except for those that humans apply to it.]
Universe has not purpose except for that which humans apply to it.