the two words that make or break any scientific theory: object and exist. These are the two most important
words in Science. Hume and Kant picked up the ball where the Greeks dropped it and zeroed in on the crucial
question: What is it that we are adding to the word object when we say that in addition it exists.
" By whatever and by however many predicates we may think a thing - even if we
completely determine it — we do not make the least addition to the thing when we
further declare that this thing is. ... If we think in a thing every feature of reality
except one, the missing reality is not added by my saying that this defective
thing exists. (Critique of Pure Reason, B628)" 
Neither Hume nor Kant managed to answer the question, and those who came after did little better.
to Leo Sachse" 
" Socrates' existence could be a real property only if it added something to him,
which it clearly does not." 
Today, the morons of Philosophy have arrived at a temporary solution that seems reasonable to many of them.
They concluded that there is a difference between 'is' and 'exists'. Some claim that these words are not
synonyms as often claimed by dictionaries:
" Why draw the ‘exists’/‘is’ distinction? Because it seems intuitively clear that
‘Pegasus’, ‘Zeus’, and ‘Hamlet’ are names of nonexistent, mythical, and fictional
creatures. After all, ‘the logic of natural language seems to presuppose that it
makes sense to refer to and talk about these creatures’... Consequently, there is
indeed a case for not dismissing Pegasus and others as complete nonentities,
but for admitting that they do have some kind of entity. One might even be
tempted to say that they exist, except that this could be taken to imply that they
were no less real than Aristotle, Plato and Julius Caesar, which few would be
prepared to accept. To do justice to these considerations, therefore, we are
urged to allow that Pegasus and Zeus truly are (or have being), but not to go so
far as to accept that they exist (or have existence)." 
The philosophers are suggesting that the definition of exist has to do with how we discover objects. Concrete
objects we collide against (exist). Abstract objects we think about (is). The numskulls reach such ridiculous
conclusions because they attempt to prove definitions. The members of the establishment believe that a
definition is something you demonstrate by running an experiment.
In Science, however, we do it differently. Before we can use a word or carry out an experiment in which it plays
the central role, we must define it. In Science, definitions precede experimentation.
The result is that today we have people on both sides of the divide using the word exist without ever having
defined it or knowing what they are talking about. Fortunately, this leads to very amusing conclusions:
invent mathematics, but rather discover it, and any other intelligent beings in the
universe would presumably do the same." 
[Intelligent beings? The mathematicians obviously have a very high opinion of themselves.]
" Platonism is the form of realism that suggests that mathematical entities are abstract...
all structures that exist mathematically also exist physically in their own universe." 
[I guess we could call it 'abstract realism,' something like 'existing non existence'! The hero
of the establishment, Plato, was a total moron! Unfortunately, most of humanity followed
his line of thinking, presenting abstractions (e.g., numbers) as if they were real.]
" The major problem of mathematical platonism is this: precisely where and how do the
mathematical entities exist" 
then electrons must exist. Since physics needs to talk about numbers in offering any
of its explanations, then numbers must exist. 
" Where Quine suggested that mathematics was indispensable for our best scientific
theories, and therefore should be accepted as a body of truths talking about
independently existing entities, Field suggested that mathematics was dispensable,
and therefore should be considered as a body of falsehoods not talking about
anything real." 
" mathematics is not universal and does not exist in any real sense, other than in human
And so we sit back and relax, eat popcorn, and watch how the idiots of Mathematics and Philosophy make total
fools of themselves talking in circles.
The non-existence of Socrates:
circular reasoning in contemporary
"I am Socrates, I am,
but I don't exist."
|Yes, Bill ! I 'am' Socrates, but I
don't 'exist.' I 'existed,' but that
was 2000 years ago. Let me prove
it to you. Give me your hand. What
do you feel? Now tell me. Do you
really believe that I exist?
Fig. 1 The creation of space
|Theists, atheists, and agnostics have
no idea what they're arguing about!
|Adapted for the Internet from:
Why God Doesn't Exist
|You see what you did with your
unwarranted and extreme skepticism,
Bill? Now I don't want the whole
Universe to vanish like my leg did.
So please promise me that you will
believe in the existence of Big Bang !
Please believe in the existence
of space... for Steve's sake!
|created space, it didn't exist. Now,
thanks to this ground- breaking
invention, both God and ourselves
have something to cover our
shame with and to provide us with
contour. Without space, God loses
His most precious super-power:
shape. Therefore, space precedes
God, and it makes no sense to say
that God created it. Likewise,
without a contouring medium, Big
Bang is absolute poppycock!
So what did relativists do to get
around this insurmountable con-
ceptual problem? They developed
the argument that space-time is not
|question in the first place. The mathematicians are brainwashed in college to repeat like zombies that
this is a question for philosophers. They are told to say that the issue of what lies beyond our
Universe doesn't concern Science because we cannot test the proposal with an experiment, so why
bother. It's just your opinion, Bill! (In § 7.0 below, I show that only Einstein's idiots prove existence
with an experiment!)
The mathematicians should learn the scientific method before uttering such nonsense. Whether
space (i.e., Big Bang) can be contained by something is a conceptual issue lying at the root of the
presentation they just finished giving. The mathematicians concocted these convenient loopholes
because the question inherently destroys their theory. If relativists wish to use the words object,
space, and exist in a dissertation they must define them scientifically (i.e., in such a way that the
words can be used consistently throughout the presentation). Only then will the participants be
able to talk intelligently about the subject.