Pyramids of the Ancient Pre-Socratics as a Physicalization of Abstract Philosophical Theory

[Eodnhoj7]

In simpler terms, provide a framework which is valid and not subject to corruption.

You missed a step.

Provide a framework (that is not subject to corruption) in which the criteria for "validity" can be established.
Until then we are unable to discern "valid" from "invalid" frameworks.

(And if you don't see Godel's incompleteness problem here - I don't know how else to help you)

And what is corruption?

The current route of "publishment" in the scientific community, is not valid according to scientific studies.

Until we have agreed upon an objective standard for "validity" this line of reasoning is circular.

False, because you are implying circularity is a fallacy while ignoring the premise of "bandwagon" that you promote as a foundational axiom.

Don't be a hypocrite...or worse a wannabe skeptic.

For a non-wannabe skeptic you sure like axioms.

Tell me what is not assumed and I will tell you what is not an axiom.

[Eodnhoj7]

How can I if the western world is only running computer sims...like the majority of current "studies" in physics.

What does one have have to do with the other? Other scientists use computer sims. YOU don't have to.

DO the experiment without computers.

I am providing a reference to for those who believe in computer sims. I am neutral to them.

[Eodnhoj7]

How can I if the western world is only running computer sims...like the majority of current "studies" in physics.

If they are, which I doubt, it'll be because their sims are based upon actual constants that have already been empirically tested.

False, you fail to take into account the model you provide for determining truth:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ew-science

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... usted.html

and you can just google the rest. ...

What a knob you are!

All those links show are that the funding for scientific research in universities has been seriously skewed by the profit motive of the administration and pure research has gone out the window, that the scientific research journal system has been seriously skewed by the publishers and their profit motive and that both need to be addressed. But nowhere do they show that the standard tools for testing a scientific claim, i.e. double-blind testing, repeatable experiments, etc, are a failed model in any way.
What those links also missed is things like the big pharma companies excluding negative results and failing to produce all the data set in their experiments and again it's all down to the profit motive skewing scientific research.

The only "framework" is observing the studies for what they are. They exist as is. ...

And what that 'is' is the ramblings of cranks.

There is no ethical standard for determining truth in the scientific community.

Wtf has ethics got to do with it? But you are right as science does not determine truth but falsity and as such the standards of double-blind testing, consistent repeatable experimental results, providing full data sets, etc are still the main tools of any scientific endeavour which is why such as you won't do them as it'd get in the way of your metaphysic. Standards for determining 'truth' are for the crank metaphysicians like you.

It was a hypothesis...how it could have been achieved. What we know is larger underground reservoirs of water appearred to exist at one point in the construction of the pyramids.

We 'know' nothing of the sort, this was the hypothesis.

Those computer model's are the majority of interpretting phenomenon in physics. What do you think hawking's works have been proven without computer model's either in analysis or the instruments used to measure and interpret the phenomenon?

No idea which of Hawking's models you are talking about but none of them will have been 'proved' in any way by a computer model. If you could prove things with just a computer model then you don't need them as the theoretical physicists could have just done it with their mathematical models and done away with experimental physics.

The framework you present is false, as observed above, as the actual double-blind studies published are probablistic in themselves; ie the actual studies, due to corruption in the scientific community, may be true or not. ...

It's got fuck all to do with the 'scientific community' and everything to do with your pyramid cranks not doing any experiments involving the standard methods to prove or disprove falsity with respect to their claims.

Face it, you are demanding a standard from a corrupt system which has no ethics. We cannot even trust what they provide. You r argument is a fallacy of authority.

Oh! Ok, I get your point, the solution is to stop funding the research universities on the ridiculous metric of 'impact' based upon journal hits. It's time to tell the publishers of the journals to start spending a chunk of their massive profits on hiring scientists to vet their papers. It could be time, at least over here, to set up a central body to deal with peer-review of scientific papers. It's time to stop the pharma companies getting away not publishing all their results, etc, etc. This guy has been campaigning on such stuff for ages. https://www.badscience.net/

Still a fallacy of authority as scientific evidence is determined by group agreement.

I explained the framework, while observing it needs to be expanded in interpretation. There is no deception or absence of reason in it.

If you mean your dowsing/pyramid stuff then you should start with testing your measuring tools first and applying the standard tools of falsification to them and the results of your 'experiments', if you want to be scientific that is. Otherwise you are just a living example of why metaphysicians died out and the natural philosophers took over.

False, you are equating truth to group agreement. There is also a problem of definition, as a strict "material only" nature of "being" requires natural philosophy to exist as a system of metaphysics. If all is material, and natural philosophy observes materiality, than natural philosophy is "materiality que materiality" where materiality is "being".

You mumble alot. You should really stop, it makes you come off as a raving angry lunatic.

So if I provide answers (ie claims by modern science), you claim it is profit seeking...so what is a non-profit science publishing source I should use? And where is your proof it is not profit seeking?

So no computer's where used in observing or calculating any of hawking experiment's calculations?

[Eodnhoj7]

Oh dear.... in your own other words...

Stay on topic, you claimed water as the test medium...what you imply makes no sense.

And if you aren't looking for water, then you would be using dowsing rods that are calibrated for something other than that, you after all have repeatedly told me that rods only react to the correct object if they are made of the correct materials, so just use the right materials for the test.

Or, you can use a watery rod if you like and float it in something not watery, like mercury. This shit is really very easy, try to keep a grip on yourself man.

Actually mercury is a poor framework as well considering it produces an inverse electromagnetic charge when exposed to any em field...a weak one but one nonetheless...

I don't believe you. I think you made up the phrase "inverse electromagnetic charge" and that would be why that phrase returns only one result when Googled (something I have never seen before)

Inverse magnetic charge is a reversal of magetic charge. There was once a magetic charge...then there is not.

At the fact laying the rods on there sides causes an equal problem considering they are 90 degree angles...which side should it be directed towards. Should the bottom point to it? The top? The angle? Which side of the angle? If

You can either construct a sensible test to demonstrate that your witchcraft isn't stupid, or it's stupid. All of that is your problem. If there is no way to demonstrate the effectiveness of the tool in testing for the phenomenon it claims to measure, you cannot base a scientific claim on measurements you fabricated with it.

False, "sensible" is not defined and makes no sense. You have to provide a framework for what is sensible.

I argued "x" results occured in "y" framework. It is neither true nor false. It is just that "x" results occur with "y" framework. It is strictly an observation of relation.

Do you even know what you are talking about or are you just the resident idiot? If I call you an idiot does that count as "un-pc" for harassing a homosexual?

Oh dear. A couple of years ago I wrote something to tease you because you have that toxic masculinity problem. Had I realised it was the closest you have come to human affection this century, I might not have lead you on that way. In truth I don't want to see your junk. Alas psychiatrically you seem to be in worrying decline, so perhaps I will give your balls a pity tickle, but you have to do the shaft work for yourself.

False, there is no toxic masculinity that is an assumed term. If masculinity is determined by an observation of authority and order...those are relative terms. I can be strong authoritatively/orderly in one context and weak in another context. Toxic masculinity is a relative term.

I know you are not gay...even if you were...I still wouldn't care. I had good aquaintances I worked with, men, that hit on me. I could care less.


I am shoving the "homo thing" in your face because you are insecure about it. Does it bother you being called gay? Do you have a problem with homosexuals?

All you have to do, is create any experiment where the dowsing rod actually dowses without being held in anyone's hands. That should be easy if they are indeed moved by forces external to the holder. If you haven't enough imagination to come up with such a test, then you really are wasting your time.

False, because the variables change if the human condition is taken out. For all we know the rods work through the electromagnetic field of the individual where the person themselves acts as a tuning fork.

The question is controlling hand movement, that is the variable to be eliminated.

So after all the transparent evasion, you now recognise that the hand moves the stick, not some ethereal force. you are the one wanting to be taken seriously, it is your problem to show how these things work, or least come up with a sane test to show that they work.

False, what I am saying is the framework is faulty as you are trying to seperate the observer from the object. Hands or not, the framework is a projection of the psyche.

The bullshit you have written about frameworks and 'proofs' amounts to nothing more than a claim that if any observer is personally convinced of an effect then the act of persuasion constitutes a limited proof. But that works for flat Earth conspiracy theorists who satisfy themselves that the Earth is not round on a daily basis, and it works for astronauts who go into the sky and witness that the Earth is indeed round. The word 'proof' is not worth using in any context where mutually exclusive things can be 'proven' and you are stupid for trying that move.

Actually if we live in a 2 dimensional universe...the world (and all being for that matter) is flat...so the flat earther's are technically right according to the physicists.

All proof is assumption, all assumption is an empty minded state where being is taken as is without thought or feeling.

Now please post some witty response so I can verbally smack you around more.

Verbally? But you have the power to unleash your triangular wizard powers and dislocate my spleen from the other side of the world. You can wiggle your little witchy-stick to inflamorate every sphincter in my body, you filthy little magical rascal.

Apparently you frothing rage where I can cause you to go mad over nothing...does make me a wizard. I think I shall take the name gandalf.

"YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!"

lol...what a...ehh...alright movie.

[FlashDangerpants]

Actually mercury is a poor framework as well considering it produces an inverse electromagnetic charge when exposed to any em field...a weak one but one nonetheless...

I don't believe you. I think you made up the phrase "inverse electromagnetic charge" and that would be why that phrase returns only one result when Googled (something I have never seen before)

Inverse magnetic charge is a reversal of magetic charge. There was once a magetic charge...then there is not.

The level of desparation in your bullshit is saddening. "There was once a magetic charge...then there is not" is a massively disimilar claim to "it produces an inverse electromagnetic charge". Even you can tell the difference between a passive absense and an active inversion. You are making a fool of yourself.

Now please post some witty response so I can verbally smack you around more.

Verbally? But you have the power to unleash your triangular wizard powers and dislocate my spleen from the other side of the world. You can wiggle your little witchy-stick to inflamorate every sphincter in my body, you filthy little magical rascal.

Apparently you frothing rage where I can cause you to go mad over nothing...does make me a wizard. I think I shall take the name gandalf.

"YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!"

lol...what a...ehh...alright movie.

That was my written verbal smacking? I think you need to take a second try. Perhaps if you put a triangle of tin foil on your head your abilities will improve. Or perhaps it will give you racing toothache and nervous bladder, all possible outcomes seem like fun.

[Arising_uk]

...
Still a fallacy of authority as scientific evidence is determined by group agreement.

Of course it is, group agreement about the methods of verification and falsifiability of tools and hypotheses and group agreement about repeatable experimental results and neither are fallacies of authority.

False, you are equating truth to group agreement. ...

And you are misunderstanding what group agreement means in the context of science.

There is also a problem of definition, as a strict "material only" nature of "being" requires natural philosophy to exist as a system of metaphysics. If all is material, and natural philosophy observes materiality, than natural philosophy is "materiality que materiality" where materiality is "being".

What are you waffling on about now!?

You mumble alot. You should really stop, it makes you come off as a raving angry lunatic.

I'M SORRY IS THIS BETTER?

So if I provide answers (ie claims by modern science), you claim it is profit seeking...

NO YOU LOON, WHAT I CLAIMED WAS THAT THE METHODS OF SCIENCE THAT I'VE SUGGESTED YOU APPLY TO YOUR TINFOIL EXPERIMENTS ARE BEING UNDERMINED BY THE PROFIT MOTIVE IN THE WAY FUNDING OF RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES IS ALLOCATED AND THE WAY PEER-REVIEW IS BEING CARRIED-OUT BY THE SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING INDUSTRY. WHAT I POINTED OUT TO YOU WAS THAT YOUR LINKS DID NOT SHOW THAT THE METHODS OF VERIFICATION AND FALSIFICATION, ETC, HAVE FAILED AS THE METHOD OF TESTING HYPOTHESES AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND AS SUCH YOU SHOULD APPLY THEM TO YOUR 'RESEARCH'.

so what is a non-profit science publishing source I should use? ...

TRY THE FORTEAN TIMES OR THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER. OF COURSE YOU COULD JUST DO YOUR PYRAMID EXPERIMENTS IN A SCIENTIFIC MANNER AND CLAIM JAMES RANDI'S PRIZE. HTTPS://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/ONE_MILLI ... _CHALLENGE

And where is your proof it is not profit seeking?

IT'S GIVING AWAY A MILLION DOLLARS.

So no computer's where used in observing or calculating any of hawking experiment's calculations?

WHICH OF HAWKING'S EXPERIMENTS? HAWKING WAS A THEORETICAL PHYSICIST, AS SUCH I DOUBT HE'D HAVE DONE ANY EXPERIMENTS BUT DID CREATE MATHEMATICAL MODELS OF WHICH I HAVE NO DOUBT SOME COMPUTER SCIENTIST HAS CREATED SIMULATIONS FROM. I'M ALSO SURE THAT THE CONSTANTS THEY WOULD HAVE USED WOULD BE ONE'S BASED UPON RESULTS BASED UPON VERIFIED AND FALSIFIABLE EXPERIMENTAL METHODS AND RESULTS BUT EVEN THEN THEY ARE NOT EXPERIMENTS BUT JUST HYPOTHESES.

[Eodnhoj7]

False, because "incompleteness" is in itself incomplete under your own argument as it is defined by reason.

Circular regress.

Muchauseen Trillema.

And the Munchhausen Trillema fails to justify itself.

Unlike foundationalism though, Coherentism can bootstrap itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrapping

Pull itself by its own hair so to speak.

The munchauseen actually does justify itself, it claims all is an assumption including itself.

Foundationalism, in these respects, is a bootstrap itself:

Foundationalism
Foundationalism concerns philosophical theories of knowledge resting upon justified belief, some secure foundation of certainty. Its main rival is coherentism, whereby a body of knowledge, not requiring a secure foundation, can be established by the interlocking strength of its components, like a puzzle solved without prior certainty that each small region was solved correctly.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=foundatio ... 501B7F5E87

Justified belief must be made coherent through a system of axioms.

The "interlocking strength of its components" is a justified belief. It is assumed as self-evidence.

[Eodnhoj7]

[/color]
I don't believe you. I think you made up the phrase "inverse electromagnetic charge" and that would be why that phrase returns only one result when Googled (something I have never seen before)

Inverse magnetic charge is a reversal of magetic charge. There was once a magetic charge...then there is not.

The level of desparation in your bullshit is saddening. "There was once a magetic charge...then there is not" is a massively disimilar claim to "it produces an inverse electromagnetic charge". Even you can tell the difference between a passive absense and an active inversion. You are making a fool of yourself.

My bad...whatever. It already barely has an electric charge to begin with and the direction of the magnetic field goes in the opposite direction.


https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=388




[/color]

Verbally? But you have the power to unleash your triangular wizard powers and dislocate my spleen from the other side of the world. You can wiggle your little witchy-stick to inflamorate every sphincter in my body, you filthy little magical rascal.

Apparently you frothing rage where I can cause you to go mad over nothing...does make me a wizard. I think I shall take the name gandalf.

"YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!"

lol...what a...ehh...alright movie.

That was my written verbal smacking? I think you need to take a second try. Perhaps if you put a triangle of tin foil on your head your abilities will improve. Or perhaps it will give you racing toothache and nervous bladder, all possible outcomes seem like fun.

No...what is a verbal "smacking" is the fact you represent nothing of value and you are easy to draw into these conversations.

[Eodnhoj7]

...
Still a fallacy of authority as scientific evidence is determined by group agreement.

Of course it is, group agreement about the methods of verification and falsifiability of tools and hypotheses and group agreement about repeatable experimental results and neither are fallacies of authority.

Actually they are as group interpretation is a still an authority.

False, you are equating truth to group agreement. ...

And you are misunderstanding what group agreement means in the context of science.

When multiple people "see" the same thing, however all "sight" is dependent primarily on interpretation.

There is also a problem of definition, as a strict "material only" nature of "being" requires natural philosophy to exist as a system of metaphysics. If all is material, and natural philosophy observes materiality, than natural philosophy is "materiality que materiality" where materiality is "being".

What are you waffling on about now!?

You mumble alot. You should really stop, it makes you come off as a raving angry lunatic.

I'M SORRY IS THIS BETTER?

So if I provide answers (ie claims by modern science), you claim it is profit seeking...

NO YOU LOON, WHAT I CLAIMED WAS THAT THE METHODS OF SCIENCE THAT I'VE SUGGESTED YOU APPLY TO YOUR TINFOIL EXPERIMENTS ARE BEING UNDERMINED BY THE PROFIT MOTIVE IN THE WAY FUNDING OF RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES IS ALLOCATED AND THE WAY PEER-REVIEW IS BEING CARRIED-OUT BY THE SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING INDUSTRY. WHAT I POINTED OUT TO YOU WAS THAT YOUR LINKS DID NOT SHOW THAT THE METHODS OF VERIFICATION AND FALSIFICATION, ETC, HAVE FAILED AS THE METHOD OF TESTING HYPOTHESES AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND AS SUCH YOU SHOULD APPLY THEM TO YOUR 'RESEARCH'.

so what is a non-profit science publishing source I should use? ...

False, I am only argue they are frameworks of interpretation and these interpretations are limited.

The problem of "falsification" is that it is infinite as it is dependent upon an interpretation.

Gravity is neither true nor false except under a series of interpretations. It is a framework of observation, a localization of some facet of reality.



TRY THE FORTEAN TIMES OR THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER. OF COURSE YOU COULD JUST DO YOUR PYRAMID EXPERIMENTS IN A SCIENTIFIC MANNER AND CLAIM JAMES RANDI'S PRIZE. HTTPS://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/ONE_MILLI ... _CHALLENGE

And where is your proof it is not profit seeking?

IT'S GIVING AWAY A MILLION DOLLARS.

So the scientist's who are competing are seeking profit?


So no computer's where used in observing or calculating any of hawking experiment's calculations?

WHICH OF HAWKING'S EXPERIMENTS? HAWKING WAS A THEORETICAL PHYSICIST, AS SUCH I DOUBT HE'D HAVE DONE ANY EXPERIMENTS BUT DID CREATE MATHEMATICAL MODELS OF WHICH I HAVE NO DOUBT SOME COMPUTER SCIENTIST HAS CREATED SIMULATIONS FROM. I'M ALSO SURE THAT THE CONSTANTS THEY WOULD HAVE USED WOULD BE ONE'S BASED UPON RESULTS BASED UPON VERIFIED AND FALSIFIABLE EXPERIMENTAL METHODS AND RESULTS BUT EVEN THEN THEY ARE NOT EXPERIMENTS BUT JUST HYPOTHESES.


Theory and experiment are one in the same in current science as the hypothesis are so advanced it is not limited to a strict individual effort. His observation of black holes sets the foundation for experiments, as providing a hypothesis. The hypothesis is part of the experiment.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... radiation/

So the advanced calculations and instruments do not require a computer?

[FlashDangerpants]

The level of desparation in your bullshit is saddening. "There was once a magetic charge...then there is not" is a massively disimilar claim to "it produces an inverse electromagnetic charge". Even you can tell the difference between a passive absense and an active inversion. You are making a fool of yourself.

My bad...whatever. It already barely has an electric charge to begin with and the direction of the magnetic field goes in the opposite direction.


https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=388

Ok. So you won't float the special stick you use to detect electromagnetic juju in water because it will fight with the water even though you also wrote that it only detects water if it is made out of water detecting stuff. So you always had the option to just use a stick that you know doesn't detect water but does detect electro-magic if you actually wanted to prove your thing was true.

You won't float it on mercury because, like every other substance that exists, mercury atoms interact with magnetism, in this case that is a diamagnetic interaction, which under any normal level of description is an effect so weak as to be considered non-magnetic.

So if diamagnetic fluids are out of the question, and presumably ferromagnetic ones are worse, I presume that means you will be happy to use a paramagnetic fluid. Luckily you can find instructions for how to make one on Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUKFaxy-z7s

So now you have everything you need to construct an experiment whereby you mount your magic stick on a platform floating in a fluid you approve of. Then you can go ahead and move the pyramid around the stick to demonstrate the actual detection you claim.

Or you can desperately look for an avoidance mechanism. Perhaps try to pick some sort of fight with me over some shit I don't care about in order to deflect the conversation.

[Logik]

I am providing a reference to for those who believe in computer sims. I am neutral to them.

No you aren't. That's a performative contradiction.

You do arithmetic in your head.
You do geometry in your head.
You do calculus in your head.
You do all sorts of thought experiments without you doing the actual, real-world experiment.

We spoke of bowling balls falling when dropped. You never actually left your chair/keyboard to go and perform that experiment. You computed the consequences in your mind's eye.

Every time you predict the speed of an oncoming vehicle before you cross the road you are doing mental computation: "Will the car hit me if I get in its path or not?".

Thought experiments are computer simulations.

[Arising_uk]

Actually they are as group interpretation is a still an authority.

Just not a fallacious one in this case.

When multiple people "see" the same thing, however all "sight" is dependent primarily on interpretation.

Which is exactly why science came up with such stuff as double-blind testing and exactly why you don't wish to apply it to your tinfoil research as you want your interpretation to be unassailable.

False, I am only argue they are frameworks of interpretation and these interpretations are limited. ...

See above.

The problem of "falsification" is that it is infinite as it is dependent upon an interpretation. ...

Anything to avoid confronting the tinfoil hat award eh!

Gravity is neither true nor false except under a series of interpretations. It is a framework of observation, a localization of some facet of reality.

My god the lengths you go to avoid confronting the simple fact that your 'observations' are a load of tripe is amazing.

So the scientist's who are competing are seeking profit?

By and large real scientists co-operate.

Theory and experiment are one in the same in current science as the hypothesis are so advanced it is not limited to a strict individual effort. His observation of black holes sets the foundation for experiments, as providing a hypothesis. The hypothesis is part of the experiment.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... radiation/

LMAO! Are you ever going to manage to find a link that doesn't support what I say and actually supports you?

So the advanced calculations and instruments do not require a computer?

It's clear you've never been within a million miles of a physicist's office. They can do the calculations they need over roughly two whiteboards. What you appear to be babbling about is the computing power needed to process the vast data sets gathered from high-energy physics experiments and like I've told you their programs will be using constants, etc that have been verified and tested under falsification from previous experiments using tools that have likewise been tested.

So when will you be testing your dowsing rods and pyramids in a likewise manner, if you're actually interested in proving what you claim that is. Although I have to say please don't rush as the image of you in your tinfoil hat wafting around an orchard holding two swivel sticks does cause much mirth.

[Eodnhoj7]

I am providing a reference to for those who believe in computer sims. I am neutral to them.

No you aren't. That's a performative contradiction.

You do arithmetic in your head.
You do geometry in your head.
You do calculus in your head.
You do all sorts of thought experiments without you doing the actual, real-world experiment.

False, the continual divergence of one definition from another (what is in my head vs real world) is a common grounding within all of being and cannot be relegated to strictly either abstract or empirical in nature without repeating this same process of divergence. The nature of "real world" is inseperable from the abstract nature precisely because of their reciprocal qualities. In simpler terms: A thought is directed towards the sensory reality and forms it and the sensory reality in turn is directed and formed into a thought.



We spoke of bowling balls falling when dropped. You never actually left your chair/keyboard to go and perform that experiment. You computed the consequences in your mind's eye.

False, if my awareness is directed away from the keyboard...I did in fact leave the keyboard as my presense exists relative to my awareness. Now there may be multiple facets of awareness (I may see and feel the keyboard but not may much mind to it) that effectively show the nature of "identity" exists in multiple spaces at once.

Every time you predict the speed of an oncoming vehicle before you cross the road you are doing mental computation: "Will the car hit me if I get in its path or not?".

Thought experiments are computer simulations.

False, as all computer simulations where once grounded in as a thought experiment in itself. You argument requires computation as a focal origin point, that is "assumed", in order to define the remainder of reality through it. It is relativistic in these respects and as such is grounded in time. Empirically speaking computer simulations are progressive "from" the thought experiment.

You "assume" everything is computation/computer's as this is the reality which is evident to you without mind. You were imprinted and you assumed an identity from this "framework" (ie computation/computer) and connected and seperated dot's from this original axiom. However this axiom is "assumed" none the less and as such is void in itself.

[Logik]

False, the continual divergence of one definition from another (what is in my head vs real world) is a common grounding within all of being and cannot be relegated to strictly either abstract or empirical in nature without repeating this same process of divergence. The nature of "real world" is inseperable from the abstract nature precisely because of their reciprocal qualities. In simpler terms: A thought is directed towards the sensory reality and forms it and the sensory reality in turn is directed and formed into a thought.

Potato potatoh. You are calculating consequences.

Observe.
Orient.
Decide.
Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually they are as group interpretation is a still an authority.

Just not a fallacious one in this case.

Fallacy of bandwagon, and then you are left with a circular regress of which came first the scientific method or logic.



When multiple people "see" the same thing, however all "sight" is dependent primarily on interpretation.

Which is exactly why science came up with such stuff as double-blind testing and exactly why you don't wish to apply it to your tinfoil research as you want your interpretation to be unassailable.

False, I am arguing an interpretation not unassailable proof. All proof is strictly definition of a phenomenon and as such is assumed until further proof comes along.

False, I am only argue they are frameworks of interpretation and these interpretations are limited. ...

See above.

The problem of "falsification" is that it is infinite as it is dependent upon an interpretation. ...

Anything to avoid confronting the tinfoil hat award eh!
Ad-hominum...you cannot defend your point as you have none.

Gravity is neither true nor false except under a series of interpretations. It is a framework of observation, a localization of some facet of reality.

My god the lengths you go to avoid confronting the simple fact that your 'observations' are a load of tripe is amazing.

If observations are "a load of tripe" then science as observative is "a load of tripe" according to you.


So the scientist's who are competing are seeking profit?

By and large real scientists co-operate.

Theory and experiment are one in the same in current science as the hypothesis are so advanced it is not limited to a strict individual effort. His observation of black holes sets the foundation for experiments, as providing a hypothesis. The hypothesis is part of the experiment.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... radiation/

LMAO! Are you ever going to manage to find a link that doesn't support what I say and actually supports you?
If memory serves, as I posted this link a weak ago and quite frankly don't remember it, hawking's theories effectively are used as a testing interpretation (ie hypothesis) for the empirical work. Can you provide a link that doesn't support what I say and actually supports you?

So the advanced calculations and instruments do not require a computer?

It's clear you've never been within a million miles of a physicist's office. They can do the calculations they need over roughly two whiteboards.

And they never use a calculator, computer simulator, etc.?


What you appear to be babbling about is the computing power needed to process the vast data sets gathered from high-energy physics experiments and like I've told you their programs will be using constants, etc that have been verified and tested under falsification from previous experiments using tools that have likewise been tested.

A test is deam as true or false dependent upon its ability to replicate a similar set of movements within a specific set of boundaries (ie apple falling from a tree). Thus all experiments are contexts, but when the context of the context is changed so is the context itself. For example an apple separating from a tree towards the ground exhibits gravity in the context of earth, but a different context of space results in a different interpretation. The apple is being seperated from the tree in both, hence the framework of "apple seperating from tree" is the same context always...but the context outside of it fundamentally determines it.

The outside context is always just assumed (ie "earth" in the case of the apple falling from the tree).

Thus all experiments, as contexts, as subject to contexts outside of there perceivable definition.

So when will you be testing your dowsing rods and pyramids in a likewise manner, if you're actually interested in proving what you claim that is. Although I have to say please don't rush as the image of you in your tinfoil hat wafting around an orchard holding two swivel sticks does cause much mirth.

What you fail to understand, or rather ignore, is that I am "arguing" the experiment should not be limited to that context alone...that is what you don't understand...because if you did it makes you look like an angry ignorant bigot cherry picking for whatever disagreement you can get. I repeatably stated more testing is required and the framework of interpretation is incomplete.

Wait...hold on:

You: "Blah, blah, blah...Magic!!...Tinfoil Hats..."

Me: Uhh...no...the experiment is incomplete and needs further information. The apparatus applied where similiar to what would have been historically used in the time of the construction of the pyramids...but the information is not precise enought.

You: But dowsing rods are magical!

Me: The dowsing rods are a framework, an incomplete one, and further information and frameworks are needed.

I can only imagine how helpful the computer it for you to express your thoughts...I can only imagine how cut up your tongue would be as it flaps through your crisscrossed british teeth...and all the spit everywhere. I figure that why the British are so bad at well...philosophy...is that they have a random tooth growing from there gum line up to where there pineal gland should be.

Now please go on...just make sure to clean off your computer screen from the spit first so you actually "read" what I am saying.