Response to Free mass paper

[SuperCulture]

@Smears

Here’s one called “the problem of free mass: must properties cluster?”

You don’t have to care about science to get something out of this. I know it may seem boring because it’s uncontroversial and doesn’t contain social or religious rhetoric. If you like to argue though, this is the type of shit you need to be reading. He’s got this thing he calls the subtraction argument where he provides a positive argument in order to negate an opposing claim. Interesting stuff.

people.umass.edu/schaffer/papers/FreeMass.pdf

Interesting only if you don’t know nothing about geometry and logic.

This one’s for you smears, I’m going to take mr “free mass” to task, and I only have to focus on the objection section because it shows he does not even understand what he is talking about. He can’t even conceive the concept properly. Most importantly he condradicts himself in saying you can’t visualize, that is, arbitrarily express in a visual form, any thought - anything that can be thought, can be visiualized using geometry as placeholders. I was correct in stating, this guy cannot think properly.

“An attempt at visualizing the Fourth Dimension: Take a point, stretch it into a line, curl it into a circle, twist it into a sphere, and punch through the sphere.”-- Albert Einstein quotes (German born American Physicist who developed the special and general theories of relativity. Nobel Prize for Physics in 1921. 1879-1955)

7. Contingency: The Unimaginability Objection

The contingency theorist is liable to meet with a blank stare. I admit that the no free mass thesis (4) is prima facie plausible. But why? Can we find any more articulate rationale to support this intuition? I suspect that the reason behind the blank stare, or at least often the cause
of it, is the unirnaginability of a free mass. One cannot form an image of Something that has no shape or color. The blank stare effectively registers the puzzlement of one who tries to imagine the alleged possibility at issue.7 Here it is tempting to reply, dismissively, that being unimaginable doesnot entail being impossible. It is easy to imagine the impossible, as in the case of trisecting the angle, and (more to the point here) easy to fail to imagine the possible, as is the case in the construction of a seventeen-sided regular polygon with ruler and compass. But I think such a dismissal would be too quick.

He is absolutely incorrect, free mass can be visualized using geometry, anything that is a distinct thing, or an real existing-thing, is an existent by definition, all existents come in only two forms: Bounded and unbounded, any bounded existent is an object with properties whose symmetry is maintained, whether that symmetry is information, matter, energy, mass, or what have you. An unbounded existent is all-symmetry in a superposition. This man is not a physicist or a good physicist and you can tell.