Self-evidence (main q)

Cito di Pense · **#341** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 15, 2012 11:39 am

Regina wrote:It's ultimately a question of marketing.

You mean, sort of like the difference between juggling spoons and juggling carving knives.

Regina · **#342** by **Regina** » Apr 15, 2012 11:42 am

lobawad wrote:Sorry to bum your high, I think you'll find that the market for abominable rapping is well saturated.

I know what you mean But we are talking Cito's Extra Special FLR Protection Foil here, not just any old rapping.

Cito di Pense · **#343** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 15, 2012 11:42 am

Destroyer wrote:
I guess that we should all be exremely grateful to have your wisdom policing this forum.

lolwut?

Destroyer wrote:
The concept is only incoherent to the ignorant.

gotcha

Regina · **#344** by **Regina** » Apr 15, 2012 11:46 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Regina wrote:It's ultimately a question of marketing.

You mean, sort of like the difference between juggling spoons and juggling carving knives.

More like the difference between bending spoons and throwing knives.
What's this obsession with spoons here, anyway?
Penny has one in his avatar, and last night he talked about wooden spoons. Is there some kind of spoon virus infecting the members? :scratch:

Destroyer · **#345** by **Destroyer** » Apr 15, 2012 11:51 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
I guess that we should all be extremely grateful to have your wisdom policing this forum.

lolwut?

Destroyer wrote:
The concept is only incoherent to the ignorant.

gotcha

lobawad · **#346** by **lobawad** » Apr 15, 2012 11:54 am

Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
Maybe not confused but certainly questioning your qualifications to have this discussion.

This discussion is not about my scientific knowledge (which is vacuous, to say the least) but about the cause of existence; of which I have plenty to say.

I am confident that you have nothing coherent to say about "the cause of existence" because the concept is incoherent.

The concept is only incoherent to the ignorant.

I am ignorant of which definition of "existence" you are using. Please, enlighten me.

Cito di Pense · **#347** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 15, 2012 11:54 am

Regina wrote:
lobawad wrote:Sorry to bum your high, I think you'll find that the market for abominable rapping is well saturated.

I know what you mean But we are talking Cito's Extra Special FLR Protection Foil here, not just any old rapping.

You can also investigate bake-out procedures used for UHV lines and chambers. Not useful for application to living organisms, but really eliminates the residual effects of FLR in intelligent robots and cyborgs.

Cito di Pense · **#348** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 15, 2012 11:56 am

lobawad wrote:I am ignorant of which definition of "existence" you are using. Please, enlighten me.

You need to use the existing definition of 'existence'.

Destroyer · **#349** by **Destroyer** » Apr 15, 2012 11:56 am

lobawad wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
This discussion is not about my scientific knowledge (which is vacuous, to say the least) but about the cause of existence; of which I have plenty to say.

I am confident that you have nothing coherent to say about "the cause of existence" because the concept is incoherent.

The concept is only incoherent to the ignorant.

I am ignorant of which definition of "existence" you are using. Please, enlighten me.

Existence = Existence... There is only one definition of existence: "that which exists".

Cito di Pense · **#350** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 15, 2012 11:57 am

Regina wrote:
What's this obsession with spoons here, anyway?

Uri Geller. Google is your friend.

Cito di Pense · **#351** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 15, 2012 11:59 am

Destroyer wrote:There is only one definition of existence: "that which exists".

Works for me. Equally useful is the contrapositive, expression of which is left as an exercise for the diligent reader.

lobawad · **#352** by **lobawad** » Apr 15, 2012 12:04 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
lobawad wrote:I am ignorant of which definition of "existence" you are using. Please, enlighten me.

You need to use the existing definition of 'existence'.

Knowing from which orifice it will most likely be extruded, hopefully it will be wrapped up safely in your new foil.

"Sistere" is "to erect" so kneeling humbly before Destroyer awaiting enlightenment might be a lot of fun... or not.

GrahamH · **#353** by **GrahamH** » Apr 15, 2012 12:05 pm

Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
Maybe not confused but certainly questioning your qualifications to have this discussion.

This discussion is not about my scientific knowledge (which is vacuous, to say the least) but about the cause of existence; of which I have plenty to say.

I am confident that you have nothing coherent to say about "the cause of existence" because the concept is incoherent.

The concept is only incoherent to the ignorant.

Seeking a cause for existence we would have to start with the non-existent, obviously. Your move...

lobawad · **#354** by **lobawad** » Apr 15, 2012 12:07 pm

Destroyer wrote:
lobawad wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
I am confident that you have nothing coherent to say about "the cause of existence" because the concept is incoherent.

The concept is only incoherent to the ignorant.

I am ignorant of which definition of "existence" you are using. Please, enlighten me.

Existence = Existence... There is only one definition of existence: "that which exists".

Permission to speak candidly, sir!

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Jesus H. Christ home-gargoyle, even a minute of the winternet will reveal that there is more than one definition of existence.

Cito di Pense · **#355** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 15, 2012 12:08 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Seeking a cause for existence we would have to start with the non-existent, obviously.

Graham, I think you may have neglected to consider the self-causing existent. But let us not tarry with such trivialities, and move directly on to the problem of enumerating the relata of a property-exemplification nexus.

Destroyer · **#356** by **Destroyer** » Apr 15, 2012 12:09 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
This discussion is not about my scientific knowledge (which is vacuous, to say the least) but about the cause of existence; of which I have plenty to say.

I am confident that you have nothing coherent to say about "the cause of existence" because the concept is incoherent.

The concept is only incoherent to the ignorant.

Seeking a cause for existence we would have to start with the non-existent, obviously. Your move...

Non-existence is precisely where we do start.

Destroyer · **#357** by **Destroyer** » Apr 15, 2012 12:10 pm

lobawad wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
lobawad wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
The concept is only incoherent to the ignorant.

I am ignorant of which definition of "existence" you are using. Please, enlighten me.

Existence = Existence... There is only one definition of existence: "that which exists".

Permission to speak candidly, sir!

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Jesus H. Christ home-gargoyle, even a minute of the winternet will reveal that there is more than one definition of existence.

I would be very interested in hearing another definition of existence. If you would be so kind.

Cito di Pense · **#358** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 15, 2012 12:13 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Non-existence is precisely where we do start.

And end. Every operator has come into existence simultaneously with its corresponding annihilation operator. The arguments to operators are secondary to the operators themselves. There isn't really anything that isn't canceled out by something else that necessarily exists.

Conclusion: Nothing exists. In reality.

Destroyer · **#359** by **Destroyer** » Apr 15, 2012 12:16 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Non-existence is precisely where we do start.

And end. Every operator has come into existence simultaneously with its corresponding annihilation operator. The arguments to operators are secondary to the operators themselves. There isn't really anything that isn't canceled out by something else that necessarily exists.

Conclusion: Nothing exists. In reality.

Correct.

Cito di Pense · **#360** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 15, 2012 12:17 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Non-existence is precisely where we do start.

And end. Every operator has come into existence simultaneously with its corresponding annihilation operator. The arguments to operators are secondary to the operators themselves. There isn't really anything that isn't canceled out by something else that necessarily exists.

Conclusion: Nothing exists. In reality.

Correct.

Yay.

Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Ads by Google

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Ads by Google

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Ads by Google

Re: Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Who is online