Logik,Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:16 amTo the casual reader. What is Greylorn attempting to do here?Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:38 amLogik,
You jump into the most conventional belief system like a cheap slut on food stamps jumps into the bed of the first promising millionaire.
Your name is a misnomer. You are not logical, no more so than the farcial Spock character on old Star Trek episodes-- you're a con man, like him.
Lets start with our plausible hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Greylorn is trying to expose Logik as a fraud.
Hypothesis 2: Greylorn is drawing the spotlight away from himself so as to avoid being exposed as a fraud.
Which one is true? What better way to start 2019 than to find out!
Also, since good science requires accurate predictions: I predict that Greylorn is not a scientist. He's a just a silly tools operator. He knows how to use logic/mathematics, but he has no clue how or why they work. He doesn't understand the limits of his own tools so he keeps tripping over circular reasoning.
I predict that I will find a flaw in Greylorn's belief-system (be it infinite regress, circular reasoning, hypocrisy or a contradiction). That is if he cares to allow for his beliefs to be scrutinised (which I doubt - given his grumpy old age).
Because we aren't talking about what happens IN the universe. We are talking about where the universe (all of it!) came from.How logical is it to believe that a universe in which every action arises from the interaction of at least two opposing forces might have come into existence by the spontaneous uncaused action of a single entity?
It seems I am being accused of believing in uncaused causes. Lets get right down to ontological matters.
Can you explain to all of us mortals the two opposing forces from which photons arise?
Sadly, you are wrong. All logic systems emerge from rules: axioms, semantics and grammar.Genuine logic operates independently of agreement systems, whereas you merely suck their teats.
So if you could be so kind as to openly state the axioms, semantics and grammar of the the logic which you call "genuine logic" - you will be doing us mere mortals a favour.
You only believe that your beliefs are "extraordinary and unconventional”. They fall into the same old patterns logicians and mathematicians have been yawning about for centuries.Your beliefs are dreadfully ordinary. Why present them on a forum open to non-conventional ideas?
Old ideas dressed in new words.
You are no free thinker. You are a slave of your tools. You are no logician - you "suck at their teats". Nobody is wasting your time except your own dogma.
It seems as though I've pissed you off. Too bad we can't engage our conversation in a friendly tavern over a few beers, where we could see and feel each other's mind and freely piss each other off. So, working with written language, let's do our best to get it on.
Firstly, I'm not trying to expose you as a fraud. Being a fraud would require more talent. I'm merely trying to point out that you're another pinheaded philosopher wanna-be who doesn't know shit from Shinola, just another idiot who can form sentences.
Curious that you brought up the "fraud" notion. Are you one in real life?
I do not think that I, personally, am a fraud, although I've had some being-human and learning-from-screwups experiences.
Every belief of mine has been published, so kindly do not accuse me of failing to disclose them.
The book, "Digital Universe -- Analog Soul" by Greylorn Ell was published in 2012. It was not written to be popular, and was not, so although Amazon has various reviews for it, none by anyone who actually understood it, they no longer stock it. I have copies available but since you did not pick up the book after it was easily available, you'll surely not be willing to get a copy from me. I doubt that you would be capable of understanding the concepts it proposes, and therefore will be incapable of disproving them. So don't waste your bitching-about-nothing time by actually reading what you're bitching about.
Had you taken the trouble to read my profile, you might have known this. You might also have found something I declared about myself that would warrant the claim of "fraudulent." But you did not do that. Had you done so, you'd not have presented me as a scientist, because I made my limited credentials perfectly clear. You're just another mindless shit-slinger, just another liberal progressive asshole.
You've accused me of not understanding physics and math, of being a "tool user." Of course I use tools. They are useful. I own an extensive set of them, from carpentry, woodworking, metalworking, vehicular repair, etc, because I build things and fix things that others build. Anyone who doesn't have and use tools is not as useful as he could be, or as I am.
Regarding understanding, can you explain why calculus does not apply, and cannot apply, to quantum physics? If not, you'll find the explanation in my book.
Are you still living in your mother's attic?