Lifegazer's special relativity "proof"

[lifegazer]

Re: Come on, youze guys!

But I will say that L.G. has exasperated you fellers into writing some really good explanations of things that I never hoped to understand. So maybe he's good for something after all?

Well you're obviously a bit thick, as you infer yourself. So where does the audacity come from to judge a philosophy that is obviously over your head?

Can't you tell a crank when you see one? Lite Grazer presents all the symptoms: obsession, incoherency, insolence, conceit, stubbornness, obtuseness -- I'm getting tired of listing his fine qualities. He gives the impression of having something to say, but he'll never say it, and you know he won't. I don't think his apparent age (I'm guessing about 15) excuses him: some cranks start early.

Worst of all, he's boring. I don't use the Iggy button, but I find when reading threads that I almost always just scroll past his long, windy, irrational, and deeply uninteresting posts.

You are without doubt a descendent of a neanderthal. I pity you not because you are stupid - an accident of birth that could happen to any man - but because you have the audacity to be a judge of rationale you clearly cannot comprehend. Your soul is lost already. You are a victim of society's crime and that is an awful shame.

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Re: Come on, youze guys!

I pity you not because you are stupid - an accident of birth that could happen to any man - but because you have the audacity to be a judge of rationale you clearly cannot comprehend.

Dang it. Just had that fixed too...

 

[lifegazer]

What do you mean by "meaning"?

What do you mean by what do I mean?
Aint word games a bitch?
Are you so desparate that this is what you revert to?

False dilemma. Are there no other possibilities you can immagine? For instance, the universe is a much more complex place than our common everyday experiences would lead us to believe?

"Imagine"?
Look, your whole perception of existence dances to your actions and is unique for you in comparison to all others. If you cannot see what this means then you have a lower IQ than I gave you credit for.
Either that or you have decided that the truth of God must not be unveiled for your own sake or for the sake of humanity as a whole. Have you made this decision?

 

[Hexxenhammer]

Re: Re: Come on, youze guys!

You are without doubt a descendent of a neanderthal. I pity you not because you are stupid - an accident of birth that could happen to any man - but because you have the audacity to be a judge of rationale you clearly cannot comprehend. Your soul is lost already. You are a victim of society's crime and that is an awful shame.

It's spelled NeanderTAL. And how can his soul be lost? It's all a part of the universal mind right? Or as I'm going to call it from now on: The Big Giant Head.

 

[Upchurch]

What do you mean by what do I mean?

Watch your language. It's one of the few things, besides belligerent behavior, that will get you kicked off this board.

I'm not playing a word game, I'm asking an honest question, especially considering your propensity for redefining words.

By "meaning" do you refer to some inate spirtual value, that it actually exists, or something else alltogether? What does you mean when you say, "there is no absolute meaning of time or space."

Look, your whole perception of existence dances to your actions and is unique for you in comparison to all others.

That my perception of existence is unique does not necessitate that existence is unique to me.

edited to add
And as Hex puts it, if all the universe is really just a single Big Giant Head like you claim, there really couldn't be any "unique perceptions", could there?

 

[lifegazer]

It's spelled NeanderTAL. And how can his soul be lost? It's all a part of the universal mind right? Or as I'm going to call it from now on: The Big Giant Head.

Actually, it is thal. But let's not reduce this to a spelling test, okay.
Call me what you want dear. You've already called me a loon, remember?
But does calling me names reduce a philosophy to its knees? I think not.

 

[hgc]

Re: Re: Re: Come on, youze guys!

It's spelled NeanderTAL. ...

Yeah? Maybe in your universe, Dumbass, but not in mine.

 

[lifegazer]

Watch your language.

Pardon me... maybe that word holds more offense in your nation. I don't look upon it as a swear-word.

It's one of the few things, besides belligerent behavior, that will get you kicked off this board.

Then get me banned. It will surely save the truth from coming out.

I'm not playing a word game, I'm asking an honest question, especially considering your propensity for redefining words.

By "meaning" do you refer to some inate spirtual value, that it actually exists, or something else alltogether? What does you mean when you say, "there is no absolute meaning of time or space."

I simply mean that the parameters of time and space are in flux and do distort to give a variable and unique meaning for each individual. That is why two people can have differing views of the same period of time - one twin can say 10 years have passed whilst the other says, "nay, 20!".

That my perception of existence is unique does not necessitate that existence is unique to me.

I never said that existence was yours alone, as this seems to imply. I said that your individual perception of existence was a unique experience and is different to all others.

 

[Upchurch]

I said that your individual perception of existence was a unique experience and is different to all others.

uh-huh, alright. So, what? No one is standing in the exact same point in spacetime as I am. For that matter, I'm actually getting two different visual perceptions and two different audio perceptions at the same time too since my eyes and ears are all at different points in spacetime. (we won't even get into the amount of spacetime points one's skin represents.) How does that prove your "theory"?

 

[sackett]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Come on, youze guys!

Yeah? Maybe in your universe, Dumbass, but not in mine.

Not just a goddurn minute here! -I'm- the one who's a Neander thrall or whatever he said! I'll spell 'er any dang way I want!

Hexxenhammer: I was laffing so hard you nearly made me spew coffee all over somebody else's monitor. Was that nice?

-(X^D my own private smiley

 

[Upchurch]

Oh, for the love of Ed, both spellings are accepted.

 

[lifegazer]

uh-huh, alright. So, what? No one is standing in the exact same point in spacetime as I am. For that matter, I'm actually getting two different visual perceptions and two different audio perceptions at the same time too since my eyes and ears are all at different points in spacetime. (we won't even get into the amount of spacetime points one's skin represents.) How does that prove your "theory"?

You know I'm talking, specifically, about the parameters of space and time.

 

[Upchurch]

You know I'm talking, specifically, about the parameters of space and time.

M'kay. So?

 

[Hexxenhammer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Come on, youze guys!

Yeah? Maybe in your universe, Dumbass, but not in mine.

That's it Racer X. 'ahm a gonna knock yer lights out.

Hexxenhammer: I was laffing so hard you nearly made me spew coffee all over somebody else's monitor. Was that nice?

The Big Giant Head doesn't care if it's nice or not. It dreams all of this in it's blind, idiotic mind.

Oh, for the love of Ed, both spellings are accepted

-tal is more accepted in Anthropological circles. Like Apatosaurus is more accepted than Brontosaurus. End sidetrack.

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Come on, youze guys!

-tal is more accepted in Anthropological circles. Like Apatosaurus is more accepted than Brontosaurus. End sidetrack.

It's outside my field so, fair enough. I retract.

 

[sackett]

Let's just suppose

for a minute that what Master Slight Dazer says is true: everything is a Big Giant Head. So what? Quite aside from being undemonstrable, it's nothing but the old mind-of-god assertion, and oh man but it's BORING.

The whole notion was expressed much more poetically a long time ago in the Hindu conception of the Dream of Brahm.

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Let's just suppose

The whole notion was expressed much more poetically a long time ago in the Hindu conception of the Dream of Brahm.

Actually, on this board, Interesting Ian gave a better and much more coherent argument of what lifegazer is trying to argue in this thread. I seem to remember a better one in which more was discussed about panentheism (which is the God argument lifegazer is trying to make in his own inept little way), but I couldn't find it. Had some great links too that I meant to read in detail but I've lost those too.

 

[lifegazer]

Of course I'm not the first to think that a God exists, or indeed that God is everything.
But I'm pretty sure that my philosophy - leading to this conclusion - is largely original.

 

[lifegazer]

Re: Let's just suppose

for a minute that what Master Slight Dazer says is true: everything is a Big Giant Head. So what? Quite aside from being undemonstrable, it's nothing but the old mind-of-god assertion, and oh man but it's BORING.

Please consume more omega-oils. They are an aid to intelligence.
You ask what if I am right. Well if I am right then everybody is an expression of God's own being, which leads to some pretty profound conclusions for humanity as a whole.
Please try to think about what you post because you're making a mug of yourself.

The whole notion was expressed much more poetically a long time ago in the Hindu conception of the Dream of Brahm.

Was any proof presented? Nay. And did I claim to be a poet? Nay.

 

[Upchurch]

But I'm pretty sure that my philosophy - leading to this conclusion - is largely original.

But you don't know, because you don't read other people's philosophy works, right?

lifegazer, your theory really isn't all that different from many of the posters out there and several on this board. Your panentheistic stance is very similar to Ian's. Your insistance on misapplying physics through ignorance of the subject as the basis of an immaterialist philosophy is very Franko/wraith & hammegk. Heck, your argumenative style (or lack thereof) is reminisent of muscleman.

Same 'ol, same 'ol.