I'm not even going to respond to since this is obvious rage bait, like, just read the blog before making a reply, it ain't some herculean task to sit down and read our arguments
Give me liberty, give me fire, can't say read the blog? I'll retire.
"Man, I wanna go watch a tearjerker movie tonight, you up for it?"
"Read the blog, it's far more emotional than anything else you'll come across in theatres"
"Fam, do you have any dating tips for this specific girl I'm interested in?"
"No, I never pulled any, so I can't provide you any, but if you read the blog, it's all in there"
"You see, I started working part-time at McDonald's to make some money, need the medicines for my ill little siste-"
"Put the fries in the bag and get to reading the blog instead, bro"
All i'm gonna say for those reading this, keep in mind i gave substantial evidence of every accusation i made toward shin, so i'm not sure how i'm "gaslighting"
Are you talking to me or someone else? Is there a crowd you're trying to appease or something? Well, whatever, just respond.
It's in the "Misconceptions and Debunks" blog, too bad you never once though "Hey! i should read the blog before replying to this thread," otherwise you would have already known the arguments
Give me liberty, give me fire, can't say read the blog? I'll retire!
"Dude, I think my appendix just burst, ASAP! I need a hospital-"
"Have you tried reading the blog? Go through the 'Misconceptions and Debunks' section; it will surely help. Going through it hits different and solves all your doubts, might just fix that"
"Darn it, I'm about to become a father soon. I've no experience in any of that, any parenting advice?"
"Yeah! Read the blog to your baby as a bedtime story or whenever you can. They'll thank you when they're older for having the misconceptions in their life cleared out at the earliest age possible."
"Yo, broski. Wsg abt a good workout session @ the gym to get shredded, eh?"
"Forget the gym, just read the blog; only gains you'll ever need!"
It's getting predictable at this point. Also, weren't both of you sure that I didn't read the blog, and I'm pulling things out of my nuts? Or did my responses finally prompt doubts in your own arguments?
So with that we can deduct that that the Dreamlands would be 3d if this statement where true since it refers to "the World of the Gods of Men" as 3d along with that of Men, heres the problem with this; no matter how you look at it, the dreamlands being 3d is incompatible because that would inherently make the world of men 2d since the dreamlands would AT LEAST be higher dimensional relative to the world of men, but we know for a fact that the world of men isn't 2d unless you mean to tell me that normal space is 2d
Aight, boy, let's look at this statement that you're using real quick:
The world of men and of the gods of men is merely an infinitesimal phase of an infinitesimal thing—the three-dimensional phase of that small wholeness reached by the First Gate, where Umr at-Tawil dictates dreams to the Ancient Ones.
And the
argument established in the blog:
The mere existence of a Gate prior to the first gate(that being the gate to the Dreamlands/ the Inner Gate, see previous section) debunks the notion of these Gates being dimensional. The idea that gates themselves are dimensions would imply that the inner gate should be 2D, as the First Gate is 3D, but that, and everything below it being inherently at or below 2D is impossible and inconsistent. Even without considering the Inner gate, the world of men and of the gods of men, would be cut by the First Gate hence again 2D.The second interpretation fails even harder if this is possible. It will follow the same problem as the other way. If the world of men and the gods is 3D, than the phases of the Inner gate are also spatial dimensions, so it is 3D as well. Who actually has spatial dimensions? It doesn’t stop here, but the interpretation of “world of men and of the gods of men is 3D” is inherently contradictory. The world of men in the mythos is the Waking World, and of their gods is the Dreamlands (Dreamlands of earth to be exact and ONLY there, they have absolute no power elsewhere).
Let's say we grant this and assume the dimensions are also physical. Then the contradiction here would be that the dreamlands are "three-dimensional" as these are the worlds of the Gods. And the world of man would be 2-dimensional, in accordance with your argument. So?
The world of men and of the gods of men is merely an infinitesimal phase of an infinitesimal thing—the three-dimensional phase of that small wholeness reached by the First Gate, where Umr at-Tawil dictates dreams to the Ancient Ones.
Because going by this statement anyway, both the world of man and the world of gods would be predicable of being "two-dimensional". Since, as per your arguments, yet simultaneously arguing this. You also argue that the dreamlands are also at least higher-dimensional relative to the world of man, so your conclusion internally collapses the foundations with which it is built. Because now you're disagreeing with the fact that both worlds are 2-dimensional, because you're you accept that one is higher than the other. Yet disagree with the literal interpretation of the scan, on the basis that both worlds would be three-dimensional because both would be two-dimensional if the first gate were three-dimensional.
So you're accepting your own statement selectively, and applying that same statement in interpretatively distinct ways.
It doesn’t stop here, but the interpretation of “world of men and of the gods of men is 3D” is inherently contradictory. The world of men in the mythos is the Waking World, and of their gods is the Dreamlands (Dreamlands of earth to be exact and ONLY there, they have absolute no power elsewhere).
You disagree with the VERY statement you're using in your conclusion, but using the same statement you yourself disagree with to contradict a distinctive reading of the text. Because even if we had a metaphorical reading of these dimensions, you'd still have the world of man and the world of gods as per
your interpretation of the statement under the same layer of the r>f hierarchy you're trying to establish.
So what? So what about this statement that you yourself are unsure of, when you have to interpret?
The mere existence of a Gate prior to the first gate(that being the gate to the Dreamlands/ the Inner Gate, see previous section) debunks the notion of these Gates being dimensional. The idea that gates themselves are dimensions would imply that the inner gate should be 2D, as the First Gate is 3D, but that, and everything below it being inherently at or below 2D is impossible and inconsistent. Even without considering the Inner gate, the world of men and of the gods of men, would be cut by the First Gate hence again 2D.
You said this twice. You do this twice infact, you say both planes would be 2-dimensional to derive that contradiction, but even with the metaphorical reading, they'd be under the same plane of existence. Yet you simultaneously reject the conclusion you derive from this statement, to say the dreamlands would be higher than the world of man.
I ask again, so? There's either a misreading of the text or confusion in your own interpretation. I go with the former, because we're told a few paragraphs before that, this:
He was told how childish and limited is the notion of a tri-dimensional world, and what an infinity of directions there are besides the known directions of up-down, forward-backward, right-left. He was shown the smallness and tinsel emptiness of the little Earth gods, with their petty, human interests and connections—their hatreds, rages, loves and vanities; their craving for praise and sacrifice, and their demands for faiths contrary to reason and nature.While most of the impressions translated themselves to Carter as words, there were others to which other senses gave interpretation. Perhaps with eyes and perhaps with imagination he perceived that he was in a region of dimensions beyond those conceivable to the eye and brain of man.
The dimensions that are beyond the conceivability of man's perception and brain are those beyond the three-dimensional world. Not the "two-dimensional world", so I ask again, you send and argue from that statement. So? Considering we're told this, why can't the part about the gate just be conjunctive rather than an extension of a predicate applied to both the world of men and the world of gods, as you so argued? Why switch your interpretations when you apply it as a counterfactual to geometric dimensions, then argue something else later on that contradicts the foundations of that counterfactual later on?
thus making this entire statement extremely self-contradicting if we went under interpterion that the dimensions are literal, to the contrary, if we said dimensionality is merely used as an analogy for Carter to understand and/or the Gates have a similar, "pseudo" structure of dimensionality, than only than can this statement be reconciled, especially given that literally nothing else implies the gates to be bound to dimensionality outside of this single statement, which is contradicted again and again by both itself, and other stories
This argument is made in such jest that you can't even derive your own interpretation of that scan without contradicting your own conclusion from that scan.
Why should I care about a statement you, yourself, disagree with? Does it apparently only matter as a statement selectively, when you want to use it to derive a contradiction, get a contradiction, when you want to talk about this, implying the dimensions aren't geometric?
I giggle every time I hear or read the blog, because every time it is referenced, the arguments being referenced look like...
This.
Responding to Tommy the Messiah and not okstrike since the bits below aren't his specifically.
It's weird that you are still trying to find mathematical excuses for the unnamable.
No, I'm telling you none of this entails being beyond geometry and topology because the listed properties are not unique to non-geometrical spaces, and so it's a non-sequitur to assume there's an entailment relation between the inference and conclusion.
It's sorta like Manton in the story, the dude was trying to explain something unscientific scientifically as the story makes it pretty clear that Manton analyzes things rationally with everything having cause and effect, fixed dimensions, etc.
Cool, not all mathematical spaces are scientific and? Anddddddd?
But even he knows that there are things that are non-geometric or classifiable in nature (the scan I forgot to put previously)
No, he doesn't:
We have yet again another example. In the story the unnamable. The monster in this story is something that can’t be known with the five senses or solid definition, being something not geometrical or classifiable.
The statement says things far less classifiable under geometry, meaning they are classifiable under geometry, but to a lesser extent, as other things. Total insult to the intelligence of anyone reading here, to lie about what a statement quoted directly in the thread says, and say it says something it doesn't say.
Show us.
Show us where it says that. Do it, our Messiah. I'm waiting. Do it.
with the fact it was stated that for something to be TRULY "unnamable" it must be beyond scientific approach (which mind you include mathematics, so I don't see where you got that "scientific spaces") there's also statements about it being beyond all notions
If you think there's an entailment relation between being beyond science and being beyond all mathematical spaces, then derive a contradiction in what I said. Cmon buddy, do it. Show us the contradiction. Show me the scientific relevance of a function space ƒ of all real valued function ƒ: 𝑅 → 𝑅. What is it? What is the relevance to science for an abstract space that absolutely has nothing to do with the laws of physics?
- Higher-order dimensions are not explicable through science, especially Low 1-A ones. Function spaces ƒ of all real-valued functions 𝑅 → 𝑅 have a cardinality too vast to be expressed through regular topological metrics. They are just mathematical spaces, not scientific spaces. This is only impressive again if you don't understand how geometry or topology works.
- Higher-order function spaces like the Hilbert Space don't have a metric isomorphic to that of physical spaces. And they are too vast to be equipped with our regular intuitions of the physical. This is only impressive if you don't understand how geometry and topology work.
- Both spaces above, also aren't composed of matter, because they exist to just model and express quantum information (2), and the other exists to model any mathematical information you'd like through functions (1).
Where's your response to this? Where is it? Did it slip into a vacuum state? Is it thusly unmeasured? What's your argument for this assumption? Where? Is? It?
non-material are just an extra for the unnamable which support the scaling of the unnamable beyond dimensionality, something which you ignored
Not all mathematical spaces are material; this supports nothing amidst contradictions to this being 1-A let alone the High 1-A stuff.
< "Ya bro it's still described to have a shape"
< Quotes something saying it was a slime (something that is shapeless)
No. I'm quoting the statement that says it has a
thousand shapes.
“No—it wasn’t that way at all. It was everywhere—a gelatin—a slime—yet it had shapes, a thousand shapes of horror beyond all memory. There were eyes—and a blemish. It was the pit—the maelstrom—the ultimate abomination. Carter, it was the unnamable!”
Slimes are a physical substance, good job agreeing with this, not being 1-A/High 1-A by arguing from tunnel vision.
Teh. 1-A/High 1-A slimes, what a joke.
I think it's obvious to anyone reading over these arguments what Shin's intention is. He is here to prove his interpretation of the system, well not "prove", more so to be, or seem, to be the "winner"
Who are you talking to? "Anyone reading over these arguments" doesn't care about any of this big dawg. They seek the conclusions and the results. Just respond to the arguments, man. I'm waiting for responses. Nobody with a sane mind cares about these optics, as I said; this ain't some femboy dressup competition to be impressing anybody. Focus on the arguments; if I cared about winning, I'd be doing what you're doing. Respond. Stop. Stalling with irrelevant temper tantrums. Respond.
Okstrike noticed this before, Shin positioned himself as a neutral speaker in the previous thread, but he is not, he is here to win at any cost, no matter how far he must reach.
The guy who was arguing against the thread for over 69420 pages positioned himself as a neutral party. It's the end of the world!! NoOoOoOooOoOo!!! Cool, nobody possessing a sane mind cares. Respond.
What I also noticed is that he is the main person arguing, not Supernova, yk, the person responsible for debunking the verse previously? Why is Shin arguing when Supernova agreed to stop? Even so, I said I'll stop before.
Yakub and his children definitely care, man, fosho fosho. (They don't)
Respond to the arguments.
Not meant to be insulting though, it's clear Shin is intelligent. But it seems more his intention lies with winning than actually reaching a conclusive end. Anyways goodbyeee
Nobody cares; people can find me intelligent or dumb as bricks. I do not care. They can find my intentions lying towards or against Agartha. I do not care x2. Respond to the arguments.
If you want this thread not to be dragged on, stop responding with irrelevant rhetorical tactics and start focusing on substance. That's all. Anyways goodbyeee.
... son id bet that a monkeys iq score is higher than yours 
