Posted by: graemebird | April 19, 2013

Philosophy Revision: CONJURING THE YETI

  • Victor Higgins 54 minutes ago

    I have wondered about this:at the big bang the universe started expanding bringing everything into existence including space-time. so presumably before this even empty space(nothing) did not exist.How can nothing not exist?How can there not be something and not be nothing?Am I missing something?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to shizaminely (Show the comment)
    • GMBCATASTROPHE 

      GMBCATASTROPHE 1 second ago

      There was NEVER a big bang and no evidence has surfaced for such an event ever. This is quite apart from the fact that its without exception the most idiotic young-universe creation myth yet invented.

      A proxy cannot for actual measurement cannot be considered evidence unless you have fleshed out and verified at least three such proxies. I can prove the necessity of this principle totally by way of example to anyone who doesn’t loathe logic and reason. So no evidence ever arose for the big bang

      Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Victor Higgins (Show the comment)
  • ohmandamp 

    ohmandamp 1 hour ago

    So why not apply this in the case of nothing? Take everything in the universe of discourse, which includes our own universe and all possible universes, then define the category of “something”, which is the complement of the category “nothing” (non-something is nothing, non-nothing is something). What we end up with is the category “something” that contains all things, and the category “nothing” that contains no things. And by things, I mean the broadest definition of “thing”, a noun, basically.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to mg sicilian (Show the comment)
  • ohmandamp 

    ohmandamp 2 hours ago

    You end up with “A” and it’s logical complement, “non-A”, and it is logically impossible for something in A to also be non-A. If some x is A, then x is not, and cannot, be non-A, for the statement “x is A” and “x is not A” (which is equivalent to “x is non-A”) are logical contradictories, and thus it is not logically possible, and thus impossible in any other sense (physically, metaphysically, or temporally), as logical possibility encapsulates all possibilities.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to mg sicilian (Show the comment)
  • ohmandamp 

    ohmandamp 2 hours ago

    Here’s how:

    1. Define everything that isn’t nothing, that is, non-nothing i.e. something.

    2. Point to what’s left over.

    3. Call it nothing.

    I mean, that’s how logical categories work, and definitions of things are logical categories. It’s just Venn diagrams. Whenever you put a group of things in a category and call the category, let’s say, “A”, you are automatically putting everything else, and I mean EVERYTHING else, in the separate, mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive category “non-A”.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to mg sicilian (Show the comment)
    • GMBCATASTROPHE 

      GMBCATASTROPHE 1 second ago

      For us to believe in the Yeti we want to see a huge steaming hot shit in the snow. We want to see all these banana peels left around. And we want to see three immensely satisfied Sherpa chicks staring up at the stars and their clobber denoting a state of ravishment.

      There is only so far you can go with using a hammer before you have to put the hammer down, and pick something else up when you are trying to build something. The deductive hammer ought not be overused in a single sitting.

      Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to ohmandamp (Show the comment)
    • GMBCATASTROPHE 

      GMBCATASTROPHE 1 second ago

      … Well why do people take this mean-spirited self-serving approach? The reason is that even a baby can think inductively. But only trained philosophers are fluent in the use of this other tool, which on its own isn’t that useful at all. We ought never throw our tools away and I’m glad at least you are using Venn diagrams which are an excellent tool.

      But anyway why do I refer to this sort of talk as “Conjuring The Yeti?” Well what we really want is evidence. For us to believe in the Yeti..

      Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to ohmandamp (Show the comment)
    • GMBCATASTROPHE 

      GMBCATASTROPHE 1 second ago

      …. at the expense of other tools. So if mean-spirited philosophers who had achieved some admiration for some technical capacity early on wanted to, in a mean-spirited way, become a bigshot in philosophy (David Hume or Karl Popper comes to mind) they would endear themselves to their fellows by writing a treatise putting down other cognitive techniques and over-emphasising deduction. Which lead to the over-emphasis of maths in science. Which lead to the current maths-mysticism….

      Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to ohmandamp (Show the comment)
    • GMBCATASTROPHE 

      GMBCATASTROPHE 1 second ago

      I think what you are trying to do here is “Conjure The Yeti.” I coined this phrase as a response to St Anselm’s ontological proof of God. We see a lot of the practice of “Conjuring The Abominable Snowman” as a result of a principle that lead to the over-emphasis of bivalent deductive logic in philosophy. It was a sociological tendency of the priesthood to promote the works of those who tended to over-emphasise the tool of bivalent deductive logic at the expense of other tools………

      Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to ohmandamp (Show the comment)
  • Victor Higgins 

    Victor Higgins 2 hours ago

    Wrong

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to plspirit81 (Show the comment)
  • Victor Higgins 

    Victor Higgins 2 hours ago

    How so?If you can refute,please do or STFU

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Viblicent (Show the comment)
  • Viblicent 

    Viblicent 3 hours ago

    Incompleteness is the new question of nothing!

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • plspirit81 

    plspirit81 3 hours ago

    that doesn’t mean an infinite series of random numbers must contain every possible combination of number, it just means there are infinities of varying density

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Victor Higgins (Show the comment)
  • Viblicent 

    Viblicent 3 hours ago

    Very weak logic.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Victor Higgins (Show the comment)
  • BeingBadAtMaths 

    BeingBadAtMaths 3 hours ago

    Am I the only one that has the video stop around 55 minutes? Anyone else getting this problem?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
Show more

Responses

  1. [...] uncensored on “Philosophy Revision: CONJURING THE YETI“ @ A Better World: Graeme Bird For High [...]

  2. Look at the bizarre view of comparative advantage the Jew Mark Hill has:

    “Cuba has comparative advantage in both wage rates and resource endowments.”

    Comparative advantage? Okay I’ll put it down to a careless choice of words. But the fact is that none of these clowns at Catallaxy understands the concept of comparative advantage.

  3. Graeme loves Renni Zifferblatt. On account of her helping Mike Reynolds out. See her 54 minutes in. She saved the Reynolds project. She may have saved fucking civilisation in doing so.

  4. Sound like this Jewess has seduced you, Mr B.

  5. She FAILED. Her capacities seemed awesome but she failed. Mike only got his license back on account of the awesome work he was doing in ravaged areas. Which should have gotten him a nobel.

    Was this Jewish slut involved in an elaborate pantomime? Was she just providing loyal opposition? When you are talking about a crime gang trained from birth to do this sort of thing we cannot know for sure one way or the other. Goddess? Or Traitor? We cannot know. Its best NEVER to do business with these people.

    Doing business with Jews is making oneself the CLIFF BARNES of business. That is to say the other side of JR Ewing. JR was an honorary Jew. He kept on fucking with people he dealt with and yet they would still deal with him. the Japanese dealt with these Israelis and what was their reward? The whole fucking place irradiated and a huge fucking wave. Don’t ever deal with these bastards. She may have done a fabulous job. She may have been slut-loyal opposition. We can never know for sure. But Mike cannot conduct any sort of pogrom ethically. The way to move forward was that he should have hired a non-Jew for the job.

  6. But there is no denying the awesomeness in the way she went about her work. I will not take that away from her. You may be right. I may have been overtaken by a touch of Jewess-love. But when you get the Jewess love its like the love for a species of the cat-family. They are selfish and evil but somehow our girls still love them.

  7. Did the Hebrews cause the tsunami? I didn’t know that, but obviously I wouldn’t put anything past those greedy bastards. I can just imagine a bunch of them Talmudifying the sea bed, to the great detriment of our Yellow Cousins to the north.

  8. Yes the Hebrews DID cause the Tsunami. More directly Israelis hacked the nuclear power stations. Physically infiltrated Fukushima and blew it up with a mini-nuke. Just as they murdered Australians with mini-nukes on two other occasions. They are the enemy of all mankind. I’m jack of defending these animals and I’ll never stick up for them again.

  9. Dirty Jew Bastards and their filthy Hebrew Science.

  10. They only put Jews in the Manhattan project because they knew they would betray the secrets to other Jews. We didn’t need them to crack these secrets. Its was non-Jew Germans that held the lead in this science. The leadership stuck the Jews in this project, who were fundamentally useless to it, for the reason that they would trade secrets with other Jews, always betraying the host.

    The Soviet Union was founded as a Jewish takeover of Russians. Communism was just applied Reform-Judaism as was Naziism. Anyway the betrayal of the secrets was simply a matter of Jews betraying “their country” to other Jews who had taken over another country. It was NOT their science. Their science is absolutely useless bullshitartistry.

  11. What do you think the Jews did with that Malaysian Air plane? Payback by Soros obviously.

  12. I think the covert ops/ banking network probably wished to assassinate one person. And that the other people who died were combination ritual sacrifice and distraction murders. These guys will feel somewhat letdown if they didn’t have a whole lot of innocent third parties die along with their target. These are evil people.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: