Prev: "CRUCIAL THEOREM IN THERMODYNAMICS
Next: Bending Time and Space: A Conclusive 1st Simple Counterexample Disproving Alan Turing's Claim The Diagonalization Argument Provides Proof the Halting Problem Cannot Be Solved.
From: John Jones on 13 May 2010 20:47
There are no physical objects that have properties. For example, we do
not have a body, nor is an object heavy.

Rather, properties are a means of identifying one type of object, the
physical object. The physical object behaves in a certain way, a way
that is distinct from the behaviour of properties.

Thus, it follows that all physical objects are identical. For the
mathematician or logician, it also follows that a function only
establishes a relationship between variables when the variables are of a
particular type. For example, the volume of a sphere is a function of
(or is related to) the radius of a sphere only if the sphere is not
physical.
From: Mark Earnest on 14 May 2010 03:25
On May 13, 7:47 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> There are no physical objects that have properties. For example, we do
> not have a body, nor is an object heavy.
>
> Rather, properties are a means of identifying one type of object, the
> physical object. The physical object behaves in a certain way, a way
> that is distinct from the behaviour of properties.
>
> Thus, it follows that all physical objects are identical. For the
> mathematician or logician, it also follows that a function only
> establishes a relationship between variables when the variables are of a
> particular type. For example, the volume of a sphere is a function of
> (or is related to) the radius of a sphere only if the sphere is not
> physical.

Even atoms have properties. Look at oxygen and hydrogen.
The whole entire ocean is their properties.

From: bigfletch8 on 14 May 2010 05:19
On May 14, 5:25 pm, Mark Earnest <gmearn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 7:47 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > There are no physical objects that have properties. For example, we do
> > not have a body, nor is an object heavy.
>
> > Rather, properties are a means of identifying one type of object, the
> > physical object. The physical object behaves in a certain way, a way
> > that is distinct from the behaviour of properties.
>
> > Thus, it follows that all physical objects are identical. For the
> > mathematician or logician, it also follows that a function only
> > establishes a relationship between variables when the variables are of a
> > particular type. For example, the volume of a sphere is a function of
> > (or is related to) the radius of a sphere only if the sphere is not
> > physical.
>
> Even atoms have properties.  Look at oxygen and hydrogen.
> The whole entire ocean is their properties.

However you describe items, senses, even your physical makeup, all can
be reduced to energy, so it follows that one 'level of formed energy
recognises (in sentient beings) other forms within the common frame of
reference.

This is why it is only people who have experienced genuine psychic
phenomena,as an example, can relate, and those who havnt , regartdless
of their intellect, simple cannot. Teh describing colour to a blind
man syndrome.

Its all about consciouness expansion.

Wherever I go, you can go and do greater works" comes from your own
belief system

There's believib=ng and
From: Zerkon on 14 May 2010 06:37
On Fri, 14 May 2010 01:47:26 +0100, John Jones wrote:

> There are no physical objects that have properties. For example, we do
> not have a body, nor is an object heavy.
>
> Rather, properties are a means of identifying one type of object, the
> physical object. The physical object behaves in a certain way, a way
> that is distinct from the behaviour of properties.
>
> Thus, it follows that all physical objects are identical. For the
> mathematician or logician, it also follows that a function only
> establishes a relationship between variables when the variables are of a
> particular type. For example, the volume of a sphere is a function of
> (or is related to) the radius of a sphere only if the sphere is not
> physical.

How then can an apple fall from a tree and land on the ground?

From: Jesse F. Hughes on 14 May 2010 17:17
John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> writes:

> There are no physical objects that have properties. For example, we do
> not have a body, nor is an object heavy.
>
> Rather, properties are a means of identifying one type of object, the
> physical object. The physical object behaves in a certain way, a way
> that is distinct from the behaviour of properties.
>
> Thus, it follows that all physical objects are identical. For the
> mathematician or logician, it also follows that a function only
> establishes a relationship between variables when the variables are of a
> particular type. For example, the volume of a sphere is a function of
> (or is related to) the radius of a sphere only if the sphere is not
> physical.
>

A long, long time ago, you came to the unfortunate conclusion that
philosophy was a game of absurdities. The more obviously stupid the
claim, the better the philosopher.

Since then, you've worked hard to be the best philosopher in the
world.

It's just a damned shame that you still don't know what philosophy is.

--
"I'd step through arguments in such detail that it was like I was
teaching basic arithmetic and some poster would come back and act like
I hadn't said anything that made sense. For a while I almost started
to doubt myself." -- James S. Harris, so close and yet....
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: "CRUCIAL THEOREM IN THERMODYNAMICS
Next: Bending Time and Space: A Conclusive 1st Simple Counterexample Disproving Alan Turing's Claim The Diagonalization Argument Provides Proof the Halting Problem Cannot Be Solved.