Now for some textual support for the revised definition.
The Rope Hypothesis
Appendix 5
Not all objects are visible or tangible
At first impression, the definition of object would seem to be
quite inoffensive. We all knew it, right? Kindergarten stuff!
Actually, this is not the definition that has always been
applied or followed. Most people have the cursory notion of
ordinary speech in mind: that which we can touch or see. We
are so used to seeing and touching everyday things that we
casually assume that those are the properties that define an
object.
Then again, we cannot touch an impossible object such as
a tribar. We can at best touch the paper or the ink where the
image lies. And we certainly cannot see the air we breathe.
Therefore, touch and see are not universal attributes of objects
whereas shape is. Can you imagine an object that does not have
shape?
Nevertheless, touch, see, smell, taste, and hearing
invariably invoke a second object: the witness. This would
make the definition of object circular. We would have to invoke
two objects to define the word object.
Just as self-defeating, the definition of object would be
contingent on the interaction of these objects. The Moon would
not be an object until an asteroid struck it. We need to run a
test in which the senses of vision or touch are involved before
we can call an elephant an object. This is not a definition, but
a proof disguised as a definition: an operational or functional
definition.
If we can’t see or touch a star on the other side of the
Universe, does the word star not refer to an object? Is the Moon
not an object to the blind man?
You can touch the paper and the ink, but not a tribar.
…And, fortunately, we cannot see the air, for else that would be the only thing that we would see.
Lastly, the word object is a static concept; no motion is
involved in its definition. The definition of the word object
necessarily precedes the definition of motion. Only objects can
perform actions. Hence, a scientific definition of object should
embody no verbs, motion, or any of the five senses.
What is not readily apparent is that choosing shape rather
than the touch/see criteria leads to radically different
conclusions in Physics. This becomes evident when we
converge upon the properties of the invisible mediators that
Mother Nature uses to do her daily work.
The strategic word ‘object’ is a static concept. Its definition should not embody any movement or invoke any of the five senses. The only attribute that all objects have is form.
I am going to reset the definitions I made at the beginning of the year. I feel a strong need to clarify some definitions.
definition : a set of criteria that limits the extent or usage object : that which you can imagine or draw; that which has shape distance : separation between two objects location : the set of distances from one object to all others entity : an object that has a location; that which you can see or touch exist : to have a location; physical presence motion : two or more locations of an object; to move time : to have more than one location context : the set of objects being invoked or embodied by an object universe : a set of objects that have physical presence with each other multiverse : a set of objects that conditionally have physical presence with each other frame : saved state of a universe; film in a movie energy : difference between frames dimension : number of coordinates needed to specify a location on an object nothing : object that doesn’t exist that you present science on religion : the process of manipulating variance of a universe technology : the process for detecting invariance of a universe science : to explain; the presentation
Realizations
Bill Gaede obfuscates some of his definitions, and they have to be deciphered by comparing usage over multiple videos and documents.
Object and concept are actually synonyms, but concept is a derogatory form used to degrade alternate hypotheses.
The term “rational” is a religious term used to label notions Bill supports.
You have to present your presentation on an object that doesn’t exist in your presentation because it is not possible to do otherwise. You are always constrained by language and assumptions and that always shapes the presentation. It is impossible to imagine something doesn’t have shape, by definition. You also can’t give that object a location inside the presentation because it doesn’t have a distance of separation between other objects because it is everywhere. That is why I call it the nothing.
You can’t do pull with Magic Rope because it is intangible.
I no longer need to use the term “pseudoscience”, I can more precisely say that a particular technology is bad. For example, I can say Flat Earth is a bad technology because it can’t be used to figure out the size of Earth.
Hi @Oflameo
I think I remember you talking about programming, or spell software, I saw this YouTube video, thought you would have gotten a kick out of it.
On the MythVision Podcast Dr. Richard Carrier AMA I asked the following.
In Egypt, Pharaohs are worshiped as gods. We have historical confirmation that Pharaohs existed. How do atheists separate the divinity from Pharaohs?
Richard Carrier said that rulers in general were divine and that they tended to be deified after death. He separated deities into 2 categories politically and supernaturally.
Sara Walker and Lee Cronin aren’t debating each other. What they are actually doing is discussing physics using construction theory. They say abstractions could be addressed as temporal objects. It may be a method to track egregore.
I like physics, but I am looking for a way to participate as a Pro–am. The academic pipeline too long, and expensive for me to run through. Perhaps as an artist.
Derek Lambert had Jaco Gericke on to discuss the origins of the the Abrahamic god. The points I took away is that deities configurable constructions like software and different cities had different alters of the same deity.
It is parallel to software having object code that tends to be same across multiple organizations, but also configuration code that tends to be different across multiple organizations.
Derek pointed out that Open Theism is much closer to the Anthropological model for gods than Calvinism, because it gives gods room to learn about new things.
This means that it is plausible to build your own deities to concentrate cultural influence.
Mainstream BALG would have you believe you can only choose from the Goetia or use yourself, but we should know by now, because of the censorship paths, we can do better than that. An egregore memetically running on multiple processing units would obviously have more power because it can lower the amount of time it spends via parallel processing. Power is Work over Time.
I have taken stuff about transmitting the right signal Nassim Nicholas Taleb to heart and leaned more about myself much more quicker by being more combative and edgy. It inspired me to find a survey to measure my likely religion via Belief-O-Matic, because I got annoyed with Discordians sounding like Psychology Academics.
I may be an elitist because I think stupidity is more harmful than malice.
Though I do distinguish between ignorance and stupidity. I don’t mind training up someone from scratch, and it isn’t a problem that someone doesn’t know something they couldn’t possibly know under normal circumstances.
