Information encoded on Black hole horizons is a mindnumbingly stupid idea

[Skepdick]

Lol I never said anything about being here for amusement.

Did you change your mind again? You seem to do that a lot when you lose philosophical arguments

[uwot]

Philosophers aren't bricklayers though?

No, but analogies are analogies.

There's no filtering mechanism for garbage philosophy.

Not on this forum, no, but you really shouldn't take it as representative.

There is a filtering mechanism for garbage brick-laying.

Really? And what is that?

[Atla]

Lol I never said anything about being here for amusement.

Did you change your mind again? You seem to do that a lot when you lose philosophical arguments

Lol you are even easier than I thought
I do a little demonstration, and all you do is mock your own sacred rule. And you don't even realize it.

[Skepdick]

Lol you are even easier than I thought
I do a little demonstration, and all you do is mock your own sacred rule. And you don't even realize it.

But I did realize it. Guess you didn't catch on?

That's why I explicitly CHOSE to accuse you of changing your mind.
That's why I did NOT accuse you of contradicting yourself.

That's two arguments you've lost in 10 minutes.

This 180+ IQ holding you back, huh?

[Atla]

Lol you are even easier than I thought
I do a little demonstration, and all you do is mock your own sacred rule. And you don't even realize it.

But I did realize it.

That's why I explicitly CHOSE to accuse you of changing your mind.
That's why I did NOT accuse you of contradicting yourself.

That's two arguments you've lost in 10 minutes.

This 180+ IQ holding you back, huh?

But I didn't change my mind at all, that's what no-LNC means you fool.

[Skepdick]

But I didn't change my mind at all, that's what no-LNC means you fool.

No, it doesn't. You should learn to read.

In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time

One minute you were here to amuse yourself. Next minute you weren't. Different times.

ergo - you changed your mind.

This time thing. You don't understand how it works, eh?

[Atla]

But I didn't change my mind at all, that's what no-LNC means you fool.

No, it doesn't. You should learn to read.

In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time

Yep, you don't understand the sentence you just quoted either.

[Skepdick]

Yep, you don't understand the sentence you just quoted either.

One minute you said you were here to amuse yourself.
Next minute you said you weren't here to amuse yourself.

Because you made those claims at different times they are not contradictory. ergo - you changed your mind.

This time thing. You don't understand how it works, eh?

[Atla]

Yep, you don't understand the sentence you just quoted either.

One minute you said you were here to amuse yourself.
Next minute you said you weren't here to amuse yourself.

Because you made those claims at different times they are not contradictory. ergo - you changed your mind.

This time thing. You don't understand how it works, eh?

You idiot, that's NOT what "at the same time" means here

[Skepdick]

You idiot, that's NOT what "at the same time" means here

I don't think time cares much about you "sameness" heuristic.

[Atla]

You idiot, that's NOT what "at the same time" means here

I don't think time cares much about you "sameness" heuristic.

Ahh I'll die of laughter today

See? As I said, I'm mainly here for amusement anymore.

[Skepdick]

I'm mainly here for amusement.

Every circus needs a clown. We are glad to have you.

[Eodnhoj7]

The religious beliefs of physicists are entirely their own business, but they make no difference to how the universe behaves. Ultimately, physics is the study of what the universe and its constituents, broadly speaking matter and forces, are observed to do. If there is any disagreement about that, physicists can do the experiments and measurements themselves. The disagreements and contradictions start when people argue about what the universe, matter and forces are and why they do what they do. Any theory that isn't ruled out by the evidence could be true, and as any physicist worth their salt knows, there are a lot of different theories. For example:

The point being that if that were so, what difference would it make to what physicists observe? If none, then it is simply a philosophical position that some physicists will find interesting, others will think ridiculous and not a few think a waste of time.

It is simple, they are right because the definitions they provide are contexts and contexts are always right and wrong.

Right "and" wrong.

Do you see where I am going?

I think it would help if you broke down physics into its main constituents.
1. Observation/measurement.
Some behaviour stirs the interest. One or more physicist examines it. In this context, physicists don't really define anything; they just explain the behaviour fairly literally - what happens and how much.
2. Mathematical modelling.
Having done a load of measurements, they look for patterns to see if there is some general rule. If they find one, they may be able to define it in mathematical terms which are already broadly accepted; force, energy, charge, mass, spin and so on.
Or:
3. Physical/philosophical modelling.
Having decided that there is no current context in which the mathematical model can be explained, they may introduce a new concept to account for some variable or constant that pops up in the mathematical model. Quite often though, they will skip this part, because it makes no difference to the accuracy of the mathematical model.
I suspect it is the 3rd part you take issue with. It is very confusing because if you take every model literally, it does lead to contradictions. Notoriously Einstein's model of empty space is contradicted by his model of a homogeneous spacetime, which in turn is contradicted by the particulate model of quantum mechanics. This gets armchair philosophers hopelessly befuddled and shooting off batshit theories they believe can reconcile the contradictions, or railing at 'physics' for being so contrary. While they do that, physicists get on with using relativity and quantum mechanics, because they work.

Actually that is the problem you begin with "let's break it down" but there is no methodology to do this except start defining beginning points by continually dividing them. The beginning points are random.

We can break down physics in many different ways, and the ways to do this are pulled out of thin air.

[Eodnhoj7]

You idiot, that's NOT what "at the same time" means here

I don't think time cares much about you "sameness" heuristic.

Ahh I'll die of laughter today

See? As I said, I'm mainly here for amusement anymore.
That's sick...according to you this is a "schizo forum". So you prey upon those you perceive as mentally ill?

Really, so know values you fit to apply your "genius"?

(Mean while Atla is behind his computer screaming at it, "how dare these idiots talk to me that way, don't they know I am a genius and know everything!")




Anyhow, to get on topic, what we know of everything is forms. Physics is composed of forms, information is composed of forms (symbols and images), etc.

For forms to be "encoded" in the event horizon is not much of a stretch.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yep, you don't understand the sentence you just quoted either.

One minute you said you were here to amuse yourself.
Next minute you said you weren't here to amuse yourself.

Because you made those claims at different times they are not contradictory. ergo - you changed your mind.

This time thing. You don't understand how it works, eh?

You idiot, that's NOT what "at the same time" means here

Then what does it mean...or are you split on that too?

Is there anything you say which isn't loaded with fallacies and contradictions?

Or do you just stutter around?