Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:05 am For 'matter' to be able to move about FREELY in order to 'fall into' or 'evolve into' the shape of the human body, then there HAS TO BE a 'space' of 'nothing', or of 'nothingness', around and between 'matter'.

First of all matter does not, "move around freely." How any physical entity moves is constrained by its relationships to all other physical things. Secondly, their can be any kind of motion you like in a plenum. No, "space," or, "separation," between moving parts is required. You really need to study some physics and geometry so you won't keep making these absurd assumptions.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 5:27 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 3:41 am The Universe, Itself, is made up, FUNDAMENTALLY, of two 'things', ONLY.

And what are those two things made of?

OBVIOUSLY, 'space/nothing' is made up of absolutely NOTHING at all. I thought this would have be A GIVEN, and just BLATANTLY OBVIOUS. But, obviously, what I thought here was Wrong.

And just AS OBVIOUS, well to me anyway, is the Fact that the smallest 'particle' is 'matter, itself'. Just like what ALL 'matter' IS, EXACTLY. 'Matter', itself, is just made up of the smallest 'particles', of 'matter'. Which MEANS ANY 'object' is just the smallest particles formed together into PARTICULAR shapes.

Maybe you MISSED the 'FUNDAMENTALLY' word in my WORDS above, which you quoted here. But that word should NOT have been MISSED, especially considering the Fact that I HIGHLIGHTED 'it' in capital letters.

Have you considered that when you see the 'matter' word you are NOT SEEING what 'it' IS that I am ACTUALLY saying, referring to, AND meaning, EXACTLY.

If you want to GRASP what I am SAYING here, then just think about and IMAGINE the smallest particle in the Universe. It is 'matter', itself. And, now think about, and IMAGINE, EVERY 'object' in the Universe. EVERY one of those 'objects' are just made up of 'matter' (and 'space'). SEE, EVERY 'object' is NOT one solid piece of 'matter'. EVERY 'object' is just made up the 'smallest particles' (combined with 'space', a 'distance') and the 'smallest particles' are just what 'matter', itself, REALLY IS.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 5:35 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:05 am For 'matter' to be able to move about FREELY in order to 'fall into' or 'evolve into' the shape of the human body, then there HAS TO BE a 'space' of 'nothing', or of 'nothingness', around and between 'matter'.

First of all matter does not, "move around freely." How any physical entity moves is constrained by its relationships to all other physical things.

If matter can NOT, supposedly, 'move around FREELY', then how EXACTLY does 'matter' come together to form into the shapes that it does?

You appear to be only LOOKING AT 'things' at the 'human' or 'classical' scale and NOT AT ALL scales. Which is BIG part of the reason WHY 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written were STILL LOOKING FOR answers.

OF COURSE 'matter', or 'physicality', is constrained by 'itself', but what is just AS OBVIOUS is that 'matter', itself, think of the 'smallest particles' to come TOGETHER (to form into the shapes that 'you', human beings, call 'objects', like, for example, the 'human body') there HAS TO be 'space' between and around those 'particles', or PARTICULAR pieces of 'matter'. AND, it is this 'space', which ALLOWS that 'matter' to MOVE FREELY about, to COMBINE TOGETHER in the shape, or 'object', 'human body' (or ANY other physical 'body' for that matter).

So, 'matter' CAN and DOES move about FREELY, because of 'space'. But when 'matter' becomes CO-JOINED, into ANY PARTICULAR shape, because of 'magnetism', and only for a limited time, then there is a form of 'constraint'.

It is also because of 'space' (a distance between 'matter') that 'objects' of 'matter' are able to FREELY MOVE ABOUT, BUMP INTO, BOUNCE OFF, and then BUMP INTO 'other 'objects'.

So, AGAIN, OF COURSE 'physical matter's' MOVEMENT is 'constrained' by 'matter', itself, but ALSO OF COURSE 'physical matter' is ABLE to MOVE ABOUT, FREELY, AS WELL.

If 'matter' could NOT move about FREELY, then there would NOT be CHANGE is shape AND form of 'matter' into EVER-CHANGING DIFFERENT 'objects'.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 5:35 pm Secondly, their can be any kind of motion you like in a plenum. No, "space," or, "separation," between moving parts is required.

I do NOT know what you are MEANING nor REFERRING TO here.

But whatever you are wanting to SAY here it does NOT REFUTE what I have been SAYING and MEANING anyway.

Unless, OF COURSE, you SHOW and PROVE otherwise. So, we WILL have to WAIT to SEE what ACTUALLY HAPPENS now.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 5:35 pm You really need to study some physics and geometry so you won't keep making these absurd assumptions.

LOL

What do you ASSUME or BELIEVE I am ASSUMING here?

Also, could the ACTUAL Truth here be that it is YOU who has been making ASSUMPTIONS, and ABSURD ones at that?

Or, is that NOT a POSSIBILITY to 'you', "rcsaunders"?

By the way, have you ever CONSIDERED asking me CLARIFYING questions BEFORE you make ASSUMPTIONS, like you have above.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 11:29 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 5:35 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:05 am For 'matter' to be able to move about FREELY in order to 'fall into' or 'evolve into' the shape of the human body, then there HAS TO BE a 'space' of 'nothing', or of 'nothingness', around and between 'matter'.

First of all matter does not, "move around freely." How any physical entity moves is constrained by its relationships to all other physical things.

If matter can NOT, supposedly, 'move around FREELY', then how EXACTLY does 'matter' come together to form into the shapes that it does?

You appear to be only LOOKING AT 'things' at the 'human' or 'classical' scale and NOT AT ALL scales. Which is BIG part of the reason WHY 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written were STILL LOOKING FOR answers.

OF COURSE 'matter', or 'physicality', is constrained by 'itself', but what is just AS OBVIOUS is that 'matter', itself, think of the 'smallest particles' to come TOGETHER (to form into the shapes that 'you', human beings, call 'objects', like, for example, the 'human body') there HAS TO be 'space' between and around those 'particles', or PARTICULAR pieces of 'matter'. AND, it is this 'space', which ALLOWS that 'matter' to MOVE FREELY about, to COMBINE TOGETHER in the shape, or 'object', 'human body' (or ANY other physical 'body' for that matter).

So, 'matter' CAN and DOES move about FREELY, because of 'space'. But when 'matter' becomes CO-JOINED, into ANY PARTICULAR shape, because of 'magnetism', and only for a limited time, then there is a form of 'constraint'.

It is also because of 'space' (a distance between 'matter') that 'objects' of 'matter' are able to FREELY MOVE ABOUT, BUMP INTO, BOUNCE OFF, and then BUMP INTO 'other 'objects'.

So, AGAIN, OF COURSE 'physical matter's' MOVEMENT is 'constrained' by 'matter', itself, but ALSO OF COURSE 'physical matter' is ABLE to MOVE ABOUT, FREELY, AS WELL.

If 'matter' could NOT move about FREELY, then there would NOT be CHANGE is shape AND form of 'matter' into EVER-CHANGING DIFFERENT 'objects'.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 5:35 pm Secondly, their can be any kind of motion you like in a plenum. No, "space," or, "separation," between moving parts is required.

I do NOT know what you are MEANING nor REFERRING TO here.

Therein lies the whole problem. You working entirely from a position of ignorance regarding physics.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 11:45 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 11:29 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 5:35 pm
First of all matter does not, "move around freely." How any physical entity moves is constrained by its relationships to all other physical things.

If matter can NOT, supposedly, 'move around FREELY', then how EXACTLY does 'matter' come together to form into the shapes that it does?

You appear to be only LOOKING AT 'things' at the 'human' or 'classical' scale and NOT AT ALL scales. Which is BIG part of the reason WHY 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written were STILL LOOKING FOR answers.

OF COURSE 'matter', or 'physicality', is constrained by 'itself', but what is just AS OBVIOUS is that 'matter', itself, think of the 'smallest particles' to come TOGETHER (to form into the shapes that 'you', human beings, call 'objects', like, for example, the 'human body') there HAS TO be 'space' between and around those 'particles', or PARTICULAR pieces of 'matter'. AND, it is this 'space', which ALLOWS that 'matter' to MOVE FREELY about, to COMBINE TOGETHER in the shape, or 'object', 'human body' (or ANY other physical 'body' for that matter).

So, 'matter' CAN and DOES move about FREELY, because of 'space'. But when 'matter' becomes CO-JOINED, into ANY PARTICULAR shape, because of 'magnetism', and only for a limited time, then there is a form of 'constraint'.

It is also because of 'space' (a distance between 'matter') that 'objects' of 'matter' are able to FREELY MOVE ABOUT, BUMP INTO, BOUNCE OFF, and then BUMP INTO 'other 'objects'.

So, AGAIN, OF COURSE 'physical matter's' MOVEMENT is 'constrained' by 'matter', itself, but ALSO OF COURSE 'physical matter' is ABLE to MOVE ABOUT, FREELY, AS WELL.

If 'matter' could NOT move about FREELY, then there would NOT be CHANGE is shape AND form of 'matter' into EVER-CHANGING DIFFERENT 'objects'.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 5:35 pm Secondly, their can be any kind of motion you like in a plenum. No, "space," or, "separation," between moving parts is required.

I do NOT know what you are MEANING nor REFERRING TO here.

Therein lies the whole problem. You working entirely from a position of ignorance regarding physics.

LOL

Here is ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of when one is completely and utterly INCAPABLE of countering and refuting what I have said so they resort to the ABSURD "you are ignorant" remark.

What I have said here is IRREFUTABLY True, has ALREADY BEEN PROVED True, by physics.

Now, OF COURSE, there will be some like "yourself" "rcsaunder" who have NOT YET been exposed to this Truth, and so, for the moment, you will REMAIN IGNORANT of this.

No one could REFUTE what I have said and CLAIMED here. And, 'you', "rcsaunders", are LIVING PROOF of this. 'you' are just the START, as 'you', literally, could NOT even BEGIN to.

So, the PROOF is now BEGINNING to come-to-light, to 'you', human beings'.

But, as I have ALREADY NOTED, some of 'you' take LONGER to SEE the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. After all, just LOOK AT how LONG it took 'you', human beings, to START SEEING that the sun does NOT ACTUALLY revolve around the earth. Let alone how LONG it has taken some of 'you' to SEE that the earth REALLY is NOT flat. As I continually SAY and SHOW some of 'you' REALLY do take a VERY LONG time to SEE and UNDERSTAND what thee One and ONLY ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth REALLY IS.

Now, for you to CLAIM that I am "working ENTIRELY from a position of IGNORANCE regarding physics" IMPLIES that you KNOW EVERY 'thing' of 'physics'. Which would MEAN you COULD REFUTE or COUNTER what I have said above. But, because you OBVIOUSLY can NOT, then this MEANS, IRREFUTABLY, I KNOW FAR MORE of 'physics' than you do. And, your FAILURE to even 'try to' REFUTE this PROVES this IRREFUTABLY True.

But, if you BELIEVE otherwise, then PLEASE SHOW 'us'.

If you do NOT, then there is MORE PROOF of WHO KNOWS MORE here.

And, because you are TOO AFRAID to QUOTE EVERY 'thing' I SAY and WRITE is MORE PROOF of your INCAPABILITY.

EXPLAIN and SHOW to us what a 'plenum' IS, EXACTLY. And then EXPLAIN and SHOW how, to you, there is, SUPPOSEDLY, "NO 'space' NOR 'separation' between moving parts is required".

Your FAILURE to do so WILL, ONCE AGAIN, PROVE my CLAIMS about how 'you' are Truly utterly AND completely INCAPABLE of backing up and supporting a LOT of your CLAIMS here.

I ALSO WROTE:
But whatever you are wanting to SAY here it does NOT REFUTE what I have been SAYING and MEANING anyway.

Unless, OF COURSE, you SHOW and PROVE otherwise. So, we WILL have to WAIT to SEE what ACTUALLY HAPPENS now.

So, what can be CLEARLY SEEN is I PREDICTED the FUTURE, which by your very OWN INACTION 'you' are, ONCE AGAIN, PROVING me IRREFUTABLY True.

Therefore, PLEASE keep responding and NOT responding EXACTLY the SAME WAY you have been.

A metaphysics application, to spacetime


The daylight's personality, application of story via the stretch of time dynamic, a rival overseer of political art context to the philosophy story of Nikki Reed's meta person's body glamour's virtue signalling as condescension (through the reliance on cinema history relating to pre-existence) from ancient body glamour reality's conjunction with aristocracy's demonic apparatus cinema due to no sociology recognition of sociology visual (sociology visual denoting the biology identity), is a refusal to contend with the universal (as outer space as metaphor) political governance, by body glamour:

The universal political governance, by body glamour, is a denied applicant, to the news media algebra network (this value, of news media algebra network, as its term, being from the news media term's supernatural oversight of visual word ethos); the denied application, being from body glamour's enjoyment as supernatural relative to physics using physics as lack of sane mirror (of the physics using physics to create news media algebra data syndrome) relative to the spacetime construct of technology user to use.

The aforementioned daylight's personality -
to its advantage, it has the real four horseman mythology, of left-wing transcendence, visual word power, daylight as mediator and gravitation to body glamour, in conjunction with the forest as over the news media algebra creator of Esther Cullen's physics to daylight story.

More, about spacetime:
It consists of the identity to emotion machine, being a rival to Esther Cullen's physics to daylight story, in which the content of identity to emotion is a time to time (time to time denoting the reality idea as physical body of distance using the same slot) from technology user to internet application of the content of Eddie (Esther's brother) seeing Esther shortly before her death, in which the duo's looking at Esther's garden was my possession of Esther's visual being over the physics to daylight mythology