Obvious Leo wrote:Either read this or shut the fuck up.
Actually I have read it some time ago. It's extremely well written. I was and remain impressed by your style but, like others, I respond to posts as they come up.
You have no idea how many times I actually did
shut the fuck up even as the baloney meter popped after reading some of your posts. Eventually one feels inclined – after having been carpet-bombed by bullshit long enough - to start challenging the distortions and self-serving lies of your intellectual high wire act. The only references you make are either to yourself or the uncontextualized, disembodied quotes of Albert which you keep on repeating ad nauseam as a credibility net. Of course, it proves nothing until one reads the sentence, the paragraph, the page containing it for a full description and whether that may have changed. This is especially true in Albert's case who was not always clear on the implications of his theories.
What I also find treasonable to any honest intellect is how often you invoke the “illuminati” to concur with your views without ever offering a single, specific reference endorsing your conclusions which usually diminish into humbug upon examining what they actually said. Yet, at the same time, or as conveniently required, you claim that physicists have their models all wrong. No wonder you have problems getting into a “real” physics forum. You're out when they get to know you and not allowed in if your reputation precedes you. Ergo, you post where stringency is not required and the bullshit sensor is turned off.
Having lived long enough myself, playing, as well as being played upon by most of the bullshit variations in vogue, I no-longer require fine tuning to recognize it when encountered.
Obvious Leo wrote:I'm in exactly the right place to be saying what I'm saying because what I present is an ontological underpinning for the epistemic models which physics is currently using.
...by which means you've transformed physics into metaphysics, needless to say not very useful to physicists and by your usage, an unjustifiable implementation of philosophy. This must be the license which qualified you to call the likes of Newton, Descartes, Minkowski, etc, cretins, idiots, morons. If the standards of philosophy or science were akin to those of politics, you'd make the perfect politician with a fuck-up potential equal to that of Donald Trump if he becomes President.
Obvious Leo wrote:I've never once claimed that what I'm presenting is a physical theory so offering it for peer review by physicists is simply not appropriate.
Very convenient! Looks like you have it made being able to pontificate upon any and all theories without requiring any proof for your methodologies or its derived conclusions meant to falsify most of the current models. But certain it is that within any scientific or philosophic venue, your recurrent and interminable assertions, immune to any foreign DNA as reference, would be instantly redlined as unacceptable whereas in philosophy forums “unacceptable” is rarely a limitation. This means you have nowhere to go with your theories just like James who's been flogging the same stuff for years on ILP.
Obvious Leo wrote:However this alternative paradigm must nevertheless be regarded as a legitimate scientific hypothesis in its own right because it yields an easily testable prediction which would unambiguously falsify current theory.
Unambiguously again! Is there anything within your theories which amount to “grey matter” instead of only black and white certainties? In books on physics one hardly reads the word “unambiguously” or words of similar intent as many times as contained in some of your posts. At the same time - according to your version of the best of all possible worlds - it “must be regarded as a legitimate scientific hypothesis” only it's not amenable to peer review. Perfect circles exist after all.
If it's easily testable what prevents it from being tested? If a single test could falsify current theory one would think there's enough interest by someone who's in the business to perform the deed. Imagine the money and fame if that were true. Best of all, make all those who argued against you eat their words. It's the last part I'd enjoy the most.
Obvious Leo wrote:Simply refuting what I say by saying what I refute does not constitute a counter-argument and you embarrass yourself in a philosophy forum by failing to address the specific points that I've raised.
...and now on to the greatest windbag statement of all...
Simply refuting what I say by saying what I refute...etc.
...which almost sounds like your trying to tie a pair of shoes with one shoelace. I knew it was going to be applied to me eventually since you've used it consistently on every forum in which I noticed you as a member. It's the default response against those who more aggressively oppose or question your conclusions and there weren't just a few who did. I think you must have consigned it to a function key long ago for ready access.
What makes this statement doubly idiotic is its use against ANY argument made regardless of content. That's equivalent to giving the same response to different questions.
Since you use it so often as a form of logic in a final effort to deconstruct the logic of others, let's take it apart literally as written:
1...
simply refuting what I say: the opening makes sense. I, for example, may have refuted, but more often I questioned.
2...
by saying what I refute: how does this combine with the above? I'm not in a position to say what you refute.
If I refute what someone says how does that result in me saying or defining what the other person refutes? When I refute you I can't at the same time be denoting what YOU would or should refute.
Care to clarify your “Concluding Unscientific Postscript” against those to whom you could offer no other counter argument?
Your “Bloody Obvious” logic would be tortured to death by someone like Wittgenstein.