Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:45 pm You have no objective standard for what constitutes "science"

You are doing ineffective witchcraft. None of your work is even vaguely adjacent to science.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:45 pm You have no objective standard for what constitutes "science" thus your base axiom of what is or is not scientific is subject to your own subjective belief.

Yeah, I do. Luck/entropy is the objective standard. principle of maximum entropy. The more I practice - the luckier I get.

Obviously, there's no way to convince you of that through arguing, because there's no substitute for actually doing science. Experience.

You can Munchhausen the shit out of all rhetoric. But you are USING Shannon's work to do it...

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:51 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:No the truth is you just repeat the same bullshit about the dousing rods...when I argued for the millionth time that they are "a" testing parameter not "the" testing parameter. You argue this strictly being you have no other intellectual cards to play and this is the best you can do...and it is boring. ...

It's "dowsing" you fruitcake not "dousing", if it was the latter you'd just be playing with a hosepipe.

Once more for the hard of thought, they are not even 'a testing parameter' as one, you've not tested if they can do what you say and two, you won't do this as it'll bring you face to face with the fact that you are a tin-foil hatted loon.

But then again I don't really know if you even brought the dousing rods up...I am just guessing because I did not even read the post. You have no objective standard for what constitutes "science" thus your base axiom of what is or is not scientific is subject to your own subjective belief. ...

Lmfao!

You are a religious nut...that is it. ...

Nope, just know that if you wish to do experimental science then you need to test the tools you are using and the tests that so far in Science have stood the test of time are to isolate the variables and test them individually, to do double-blind tests and to produce experiments that are repeatable by neutral others. All things that you are failing to do but no biggie as I understand why a tin-foil hatted loon needs to not do such stuff.

Take out "x" religion and place in science. You seem to have placed alot of belief in the ability to create a "test" as the sole measure of truth when the process of "testing" itself is subject to serious logical faults and contradictions. It would be like testing to see if God exists when many scriptures state God is not to be tested...thus if you prove God exists you prove the religion false, but it is the religion that states God exists to being with...and you are left with a regressive loop.

Lmfao! As has been pointed out to you by FDP you are basically constructing an unassailable 'theory' for yourself. Are you sure you're not a Marxist?

BWHAHAHAHA!...I saw dousing in the first few words and realized I just roped you into a long winded argument...noone really cares about.

Please...go be petty and come up with a clever response...I am all ears.

Now back to the premise of the thread:

Premise for Pyramids as Technological

1. The foundation for all empirical and abstract phenomena is space as the grounding for all sensory and imaginary phenomena is blankness equivalent to a boundless field as "point space".

2. Considering all phenomena are composed of space, and the grounding of space in purely objective terms is grounded in geometric solids that exist through a dualism of platonic (square, cube, etc.) and non-platonic (spiral, wavelength, frequency) forms, both existing in infinite variation repeatedly, then what we see as the formation of reality is the manifestation of forms. The creation of forms creates reality as reality is form.

3. The geometric nature of the pyramids, in theory, would effectively reform and redirect a "unifying space" (point space considering all phenomena begin and end empirically and abstractly with points) in such a manner that it not only warps time but causes residual psychic changes, etc.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:01 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:45 pm You have no objective standard for what constitutes "science"

You are doing ineffective witchcraft. None of your work is even vaguely adjacent to science.

Science is witchcraft in the modern sense as it is strictly just transmuting phenomena into other useless phenomena. Now tell me what science is exactly? What I am arguing is "definition"...nothing else...I am not arguing science or no science.

Univalence wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:12 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:45 pm You have no objective standard for what constitutes "science" thus your base axiom of what is or is not scientific is subject to your own subjective belief.

Yeah, I do. Luck/entropy is the objective standard. principle of maximum entropy. The more I practice - the luckier I get.

Obviously, there's no way to convince you of that through arguing, because there's no substitute for actually doing science. Experience.

You can Munchhausen the shit out of all rhetoric. But you are USING Shannon's work to do it...

False, because luck is graphable then as strictly:

More practice:
Increase in luck:
Luck peaks:
No luck:
repeat:

And you are left with an objective frequency...so save it.

Actually what I am observing is scientific...and science is a process of argumentation as it is grounded in the same nature of what constitutes the argument: definition.

I see an increase in technology and with the increase in technology a decrease in social norms as well as balanced resources etc. What you claim as scientific fails to take into account science being scientific about itself. It has as many moral and ethical violations as the religions is puts down as well as the fact that science quite literally is just observing "connections".

A framework of interpretation is applied to isolate specific variables and how the variables are connect in such a framework results in a set of definitions.

Actually I am not limiting myself to the munchauseen trillema, as applied to itself is sets the grounding for what is logic by a process of self-negation:

1. Truth is assumption
2. Truth is continuous and infinite
3. Truth is self-reflective

1a. Thus we are left we assumption in its purest form as voidness conducive objectively to point space.
2a. Continuity in its purest from as the projection of nothingness resulting in form.
3a. Self-reflection as the maintainance of form as the grounding for assumption itself.

Space and consciousness are inseperable and as such your computation is strictly just the manifestation of further loops.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:BWHAHAHAHA!...I saw dousing in the first few words and realized I just roped you into a long winded argument...noone really cares about. ...

Well only pedants of the English language, so it's "dowsing" you loon not "dousing" as if it was the latter you'd be playing with a hosepipe which to be honest would be a more productive use of your capabilities.

Please...go be petty and come up with a clever response...I am all ears. ...

Glad you think them clever.

Now back to the premise of the thread:

Premise for Pyramids as Technological ...

Technological what?

1. The foundation for all empirical and abstract phenomena is space as the grounding for all sensory and imaginary phenomena is blankness equivalent to a boundless field as "point space". ...

The foundation for all phenomena is that we are a body with senses, memory and language in an external world. This 'boundless field as "point space"' is just an abstract concept based presumably upon some mathematical construct.

2. Considering all phenomena are composed of space, and the grounding of space in purely objective terms is grounded in geometric solids that exist through a dualism of platonic (square, cube, etc.) and non-platonic (spiral, wavelength, frequency) forms, both existing in infinite variation repeatedly, then what we see as the formation of reality is the manifestation of forms. The creation of forms creates reality as reality is form. ...

Can't disagree that the phenomena of the external world appears to be space and things in it but there doesn't necessarily have to be any 'forms'.

3. The geometric nature of the pyramids, in theory, would effectively reform and redirect a "unifying space" (point space considering all phenomena begin and end empirically and abstractly with points) in such a manner that it not only warps time but causes residual psychic changes, etc.

Loon.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:52 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:01 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:45 pm You have no objective standard for what constitutes "science"

You are doing ineffective witchcraft. None of your work is even vaguely adjacent to science.

Science is witchcraft in the modern sense as it is strictly just transmuting phenomena into other useless phenomena. Now tell me what science is exactly? What I am arguing is "definition"...nothing else...I am not arguing science or no science.

I don't need to argue with you about the impossible details at the boundaries of science. You are just trying to use a transparent maneuver to save face after making a tremendous fool of yourself.

Let's just remind ourselves that one of your big ideas was that pyramids can be used to repair mental illness. For which your evidence was that you once sat near a pyramid and experienced mental illness. An exhaustive list of the ways in which that incident was unscientific would take too long to type, but the most obvious would be that you submitted this as evidence even though a double blind test to the same standard would be totally fucking easy to do. The test standard is pathetic too though, because it is just some fat hairy backed **** sitting in a field with a triangle and no means by which to provide measurement. And you provided no evidence of causation.

That's why I don't need to get into the weeds over precise definitions with you, the imprecise ones are perfectly sufficient to dismiss your work as the witchdoctoring plea for attention that it is.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:53 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:BWHAHAHAHA!...I saw dousing in the first few words and realized I just roped you into a long winded argument...noone really cares about. ...

Well only pedants of the English language, so it's "dowsing" you loon not "dousing" as if it was the latter you'd be playing with a hosepipe which to be honest would be a more productive use of your capabilities.

Please...go be petty and come up with a clever response...I am all ears. ...

Glad you think them clever.

Now back to the premise of the thread:

Premise for Pyramids as Technological ...

Technological what?

1. The foundation for all empirical and abstract phenomena is space as the grounding for all sensory and imaginary phenomena is blankness equivalent to a boundless field as "point space". ...

The foundation for all phenomena is that we are a body with senses, memory and language in an external world. This 'boundless field as "point space"' is just an abstract concept based presumably upon some mathematical construct.

2. Considering all phenomena are composed of space, and the grounding of space in purely objective terms is grounded in geometric solids that exist through a dualism of platonic (square, cube, etc.) and non-platonic (spiral, wavelength, frequency) forms, both existing in infinite variation repeatedly, then what we see as the formation of reality is the manifestation of forms. The creation of forms creates reality as reality is form. ...

Can't disagree that the phenomena of the external world appears to be space and things in it but there doesn't necessarily have to be any 'forms'.

3. The geometric nature of the pyramids, in theory, would effectively reform and redirect a "unifying space" (point space considering all phenomena begin and end empirically and abstractly with points) in such a manner that it not only warps time but causes residual psychic changes, etc.

Loon.

ROFL!!! You did it again...you said something about "pedants"...and I was like: ROFL!!!!

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:36 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:52 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:01 pm
You are doing ineffective witchcraft. None of your work is even vaguely adjacent to science.

Science is witchcraft in the modern sense as it is strictly just transmuting phenomena into other useless phenomena. Now tell me what science is exactly? What I am arguing is "definition"...nothing else...I am not arguing science or no science.

I don't need to argue with you about the impossible details at the boundaries of science. You are just trying to use a transparent maneuver to save face after making a tremendous fool of yourself.

Let's just remind ourselves that one of your big ideas was that pyramids can be used to repair mental illness. For which your evidence was that you once sat near a pyramid and experienced mental illness. An exhaustive list of the ways in which that incident was unscientific would take too long to type, but the most obvious would be that you submitted this as evidence even though a double blind test to the same standard would be totally fucking easy to do. The test standard is pathetic too though, because it is just some fat hairy backed **** sitting in a field with a triangle and no means by which to provide measurement. And you provided no evidence of causation.

That's why I don't need to get into the weeds over precise definitions with you, the imprecise ones are perfectly sufficient to dismiss your work as the witchdoctoring plea for attention that it is.

You don't have an argument...you are just trying to use a transparent maneuver to save face after making a tremendous fool of yourself.

Again:

1. Dousing rods where used as "a" framework of testing and the experiment is not limit to them as "the" framework of testing.

2. Considering the dousing rod was the available technology of the time it must be used regardless of its authenticity (which is still subject to debate).

3. I am arguing "x" results for "y" parameters...that is it. And for the record I recently was showing the experiment to an unfamiliar neutral party...and they where convinced by the dousing rods.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
ROFL!!! You did it again...you said something about "pedants"...and I was like: ROFL!!!!

Lol!
Well one thing is being proved, If you don't wear your tin-foil hat your pyramid scrambles your brain.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:07 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:36 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:52 pm

Science is witchcraft in the modern sense as it is strictly just transmuting phenomena into other useless phenomena. Now tell me what science is exactly? What I am arguing is "definition"...nothing else...I am not arguing science or no science.

I don't need to argue with you about the impossible details at the boundaries of science. You are just trying to use a transparent maneuver to save face after making a tremendous fool of yourself.

Let's just remind ourselves that one of your big ideas was that pyramids can be used to repair mental illness. For which your evidence was that you once sat near a pyramid and experienced mental illness. An exhaustive list of the ways in which that incident was unscientific would take too long to type, but the most obvious would be that you submitted this as evidence even though a double blind test to the same standard would be totally fucking easy to do. The test standard is pathetic too though, because it is just some fat hairy backed **** sitting in a field with a triangle and no means by which to provide measurement. And you provided no evidence of causation.

That's why I don't need to get into the weeds over precise definitions with you, the imprecise ones are perfectly sufficient to dismiss your work as the witchdoctoring plea for attention that it is.

You don't have an argument...you are just trying to use a transparent maneuver to save face after making a tremendous fool of yourself.

Again:

1. Dousing rods where used as "a" framework of testing and the experiment is not limit to them as "the" framework of testing.

2. Considering the dousing rod was the available technology of the time it must be used regardless of its authenticity (which is still subject to debate).

3. I am arguing "x" results for "y" parameters...that is it. And for the record I recently was showing the experiment to an unfamiliar neutral party...and they where convinced by the dousing rods.

And I already told you ages ago that those "frameworks" with their "proofs" can be used to "prove" mutually exclusive claims, rendering them entirely worthless. Astrology is as capable of proving anything as any other of your voodoo frameworks is. Your entire body of evidence depends on instrumental irrationality.

If you want to be taken seriously, you will need to either use a proper tool to test your claims, or you must use proper tooling to validate the workings of those stupid witch sticks you used instead.

Dowsing rods aren't a technology for locating water or measuring electricity. They are an exquisite technology with which to locate a fucking idiot though, you just have to work backwards from the hands that hold them.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:56 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
ROFL!!! You did it again...you said something about "pedants"...and I was like: ROFL!!!!

Lol!
Well one thing is being proved, If you don't wear your tin-foil hat your pyramid scrambles your brain.

Congratulations....I just read that whole sentence. Should have worn my tin-foil hat first though.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:27 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:07 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:36 am
I don't need to argue with you about the impossible details at the boundaries of science. You are just trying to use a transparent maneuver to save face after making a tremendous fool of yourself.

Let's just remind ourselves that one of your big ideas was that pyramids can be used to repair mental illness. For which your evidence was that you once sat near a pyramid and experienced mental illness. An exhaustive list of the ways in which that incident was unscientific would take too long to type, but the most obvious would be that you submitted this as evidence even though a double blind test to the same standard would be totally fucking easy to do. The test standard is pathetic too though, because it is just some fat hairy backed **** sitting in a field with a triangle and no means by which to provide measurement. And you provided no evidence of causation.

That's why I don't need to get into the weeds over precise definitions with you, the imprecise ones are perfectly sufficient to dismiss your work as the witchdoctoring plea for attention that it is.

You don't have an argument...you are just trying to use a transparent maneuver to save face after making a tremendous fool of yourself.

Again:

1. Dousing rods where used as "a" framework of testing and the experiment is not limit to them as "the" framework of testing.

2. Considering the dousing rod was the available technology of the time it must be used regardless of its authenticity (which is still subject to debate).

3. I am arguing "x" results for "y" parameters...that is it. And for the record I recently was showing the experiment to an unfamiliar neutral party...and they where convinced by the dousing rods.

And I already told you ages ago that those "frameworks" with their "proofs" can be used to "prove" mutually exclusive claims, rendering them entirely worthless. Astrology is as capable of proving anything as any other of your voodoo frameworks is. Your entire body of evidence depends on instrumental irrationality.

If you want to be taken seriously, you will need to either use a proper tool to test your claims, or you must use proper tooling to validate the workings of those stupid witch sticks you used instead.

Dowsing rods aren't a technology for locating water or measuring electricity. They are an exquisite technology with which to locate a fucking idiot though, you just have to work backwards from the hands that hold them.

I don't care if I am taken seriously or not, these are "interpretations" and those "tools" you keep referencing are strictly group agreed interpretations (which are not really group agreed considering the majority of scientific theories, or rather "all", are strictly bandwagon interpretations of how "reality works".)

What you present is fallacious by nature.

And yes dowsing rods are/where a technology used historically for measuring the movements of water underground (which create an electrical field) and because they are a part of history (as well as the pyramids...obviously) they must be used as "a" framework of testing (not "the" framework of testing) considering the question of the purpose of the pyramids as well as their construction is subject to historical context.


You can resume fucking yourself while thinking of my ass.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:21 pm I don't care if I am taken seriously or not, these are "interpretations" and those "tools" you keep referencing are strictly group agreed interpretations.

They are also the kind of 'interpretations' which meet this criterion:

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth --Arthur Conan Doyle

If you keep mistaking impossible for improbable interpretations, you haven't calibrated your bullshit filter correctly just yet.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:21 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:27 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:07 pm

You don't have an argument...you are just trying to use a transparent maneuver to save face after making a tremendous fool of yourself.

Again:

1. Dousing rods where used as "a" framework of testing and the experiment is not limit to them as "the" framework of testing.

2. Considering the dousing rod was the available technology of the time it must be used regardless of its authenticity (which is still subject to debate).

3. I am arguing "x" results for "y" parameters...that is it. And for the record I recently was showing the experiment to an unfamiliar neutral party...and they where convinced by the dousing rods.

And I already told you ages ago that those "frameworks" with their "proofs" can be used to "prove" mutually exclusive claims, rendering them entirely worthless. Astrology is as capable of proving anything as any other of your voodoo frameworks is. Your entire body of evidence depends on instrumental irrationality.

If you want to be taken seriously, you will need to either use a proper tool to test your claims, or you must use proper tooling to validate the workings of those stupid witch sticks you used instead.

Dowsing rods aren't a technology for locating water or measuring electricity. They are an exquisite technology with which to locate a fucking idiot though, you just have to work backwards from the hands that hold them.

I don't care if I am taken seriously or not, these are "interpretations" and those "tools" you keep referencing are strictly group agreed interpretations (which are not really group agreed considering the majority of scientific theories, or rather "all", are strictly bandwagon interpretations of how "reality works".)

What you present is fallacious by nature.

And yes dowsing rods are/where a technology used historically for measuring the movements of water underground (which create an electrical field) and because they are a part of history (as well as the pyramids...obviously) they must be used as "a" framework of testing (not "the" framework of testing) considering the question of the purpose of the pyramids as well as their construction is subject to historical context.


You can resume fucking yourself while thinking of my ass.

You are palpably very concerned to be taken seriously, it's why you try so very very hard to look so clever. Everyone can smell your desperation, you reek of status anxiety.

Dowsing rods are not, and never have been, a technology for measuring anything at all, other than the gullibility of the fool holding the stick. It is no better a tool for finding water than tarot cards are one for predicting the future (a practice with plenty of history itself). They are no better for measuring the flow of subterranean streams than human sacrifices are as a tool for preventing the volcano gods getting angry (lots of history to that myth too).

Actual scientific methodologies resolve conflicting claims. Your pseudiferous claims about mutually exclusive "interpretations" merely demonstrate that your methodology is worthless.