Originally posted by Dingus
View Post
apparently not.
saying WAVES, means nothing. Waves of pixie dust, waves of water?
When I called out one of Russells cult followers that Russell made enormous errors
namely never explaining what a field was, this person spit blood and fumed at the mouth like a mad dog.
He said 'sure he did, he talks about wave-fields' !!!!
Actually of course, that is untrue, he uses a the term wave-field 32 times (i have a digital search engine).
However this means NOTHING.
waves OF WHAT
fields OF WHAT
saying wave is no different than saying HOT, HAPPY, IGNORANT, etc.
wave and field is an empirical qualifier, an attribute said of the QUALITY or attribute of another Principle, a noun, a thing.
The very qualifying term WAVE means absolutely and utterly NOTHING.
If however I said "waves of water which are composed of H20 which....etc etc"
This is where DESCRIPTIONS diverge from EXPLANATIONS.
Descriptions are the 'realm of the pathetic and inept, the ignorant'.
Explanations however........
Comment