Infinite Potential

Write4U:

Anything that is applicable to everything is useful for nothing. Like I said.

I don't know what you mean by "before the big bang" or "before the universe existed". Time itself is supposed to have started with the big bang.

You might as well talk about all the things that are north of the north pole.

You speak of "potential" like it's an object, rather than a concept.

This is a silly discussion. You're just using the word "potential" in the usual non-technical way, to refer to a possibility that something might happen in the future. There's nothing particularly scientific or mysterious about that. But you speak of it as if it's a profound insight into the universe, or something.

What do you want? A pat on the back and a reward for your ingenuity, for managing to come up with that? Isn't it just obvious, from the common meaning of the word (which is the only one you're using)?

I don't really care what you believe mathematical logic demands. If you're going to make that kind of claim, you'd better show me the relevant mathematical logic - i.e. give the actual mathematical argument you're relying on to make the claim.

Word salad.

"Actionable work dynamic" is word salad. I bet you just made it up.

Of course not. Scientific research, at the limits of what is known, is always full of different ideas and conjectures about which hypothesis is best and so on. Scientists argue about the implications of experimental results and of theories all the time. But they are usually careful not to make claims they can't support with arguments or evidence.

Science isn't a conspiracy, and scientists are not a conspiratorial cabal.

You shouldn't let yourself be sucked into the vortex of mad conspiracy theories.

Consider this: maybe Tegmark's and Bohm's more New Agey ideas haven't found widespread acceptance among scientists because (a) they have flaws; or (b) they just aren't very promising ideas; or (c) they don't suggest any useful research programmes; or (d) they seem like dead ends.

It doesn't have to be some grand conspiracy to suppress their respective geniuses.

 

No. There are no differential equations in the illustration. If you're seeing them, you might be hallucinating.

Why do you think it is useful to post basic definitions of terms like "mechanical energy"? Do you think that exchemist and I don't know what that term means? Even after we both spent some time explaining potential energy to you?

Do you think you could distract from your nonsense term "actionable work dynamic"? Or couldn't you find any references to that?

Why do you keep wasting everybody's time?

Why don't you address the specific objections that have been made about your position?

I'm noticing this pattern from you, where you just skip over things you don't understand, or which seem inconvenient for your claims, and instead of responding you just post irrelevancies, as if with the intention of trying to draw attention away from your nonsense. You do this a lot. Too much for it to unintentional. Why do you do this?

 

Write4U:

Clearly, you're no longer posting in good faith. You're just wasting everybody's time, like a troll.

I think it's because you think you're part of a cult, and you feel obliged to lie and dissemble whenever somebody says something that might suggest that the Great Leaders might not actually be superhero genius gurus.

Like a troll, you're trying to put words in my mouth. I did not say quantum theory is useful for nothing, obviously. I said "anything applicable to everything" is useful for nothing. Is quantum theory "applicable to everything"? No, it is not. But "infinite potential" is applicable to everything. How do we know this? Because you told us so.

It is "infinite potential" that is worthless. Useful for nothing. Get it?

I explained to you that the notion of "before time" is meaningless nonsense, and why. However, even if it wasn't meaningless nonsense, you would still not know what existed "before time". So stop pretending you know. You don't have to tell lies for Tegmark, or whoever it is you're lying for.

"Mathematical permission" is word salad. Stop making stuff up and pretending it's science. Why do you do that?

It was never in dispute. You brought it up as a non sequitur response to something unrelated.

Why don't you address the content of what I wrote, while you're busy admiring my fluency in English?

What conclusions? Didn't you read what I wrote?

Another complete non sequitur which has nothing to do with anything I wrote. Why do you think this question is relevant?

My answer to your question is: I have no idea. All I can say is that I'm not aware of any viable alternative models that do not involve wave-particle duality and which have equal or superior depth of explanatory power, compared to quantum mechanics. That's not to say that such a model is impossible, though it might be.

Why do you care what my opinion is on that particular question?

Clearly not. You're like a cult follower - a believer in a religion of pseudoscience, with cult leaders that you believe are infallible. Physical science doesn't appear to be something you want to learning something about.

No. They weren't.

No.

Are you going to answer the questions I asked you? Or are you going to keep posting irrelevancies, like a troll?

Stop trolling.

Don't be ridiculous. You made up the term "actionable work dynamic". It doesn't describe anything. And even if it did somehow describe Newton's third law (which it doesn't), then you posted it in a context where it was a complete non sequitur.

Who, exactly, do you think you're fooling here, Write4U? Yourself, perhaps?

After you just doubled down on the stupid and replied like a troll? I don't think so.

You dodge and avoid direct questions. You hide behind attempts to redefine words. I think about half of the content of any of your posts consists of pointless off-topic distractors.

Is this the best you're capable of?

You think that if you can touch base with mainstream science every now and then, by quoting a definition or using a sciency-sounding term, that somehow gives the rest of your nonsense credibility and justification.

The problem is that whenever you post something from a reputable scientific source it is usually irrelevant to the discussion at hand and/or something you don't understand, even if there's nothing wrong with the content itself (other than it being an out-of-context irrelevancy). On the other hand, whenever you post your own thoughts, they are a muddled mish-mash of borrowed terms from science, combined with stuff you just made up on the spot, always liberally sprinkled with references to your cult leader figures. And whenever you make scientific-sounding claims in defence of your pseudoscience religion, they are nonsensical, or wrong, or something you're completely unable to justify with evidence or logical arguments.

You're clearly interested in science to some degree. Yet you're completely unwilling to accept any correction or to try to learn anything when you get something that science says wrong. Because you don't understand enough science, you've ended up latching on to some celebrity pseudoscientists. Although you don't understand their claims or arguments, exactly, they sound to you like they know what they're talking about, so you're willing to go all in and just believe whatever they say, no filter necessary. Maybe you went looking for a guru to follow and you ended up finding three or four who you're willing to worship. But in the process, you threw away your common sense, and now it seems you're willing to tell lies and make up stuff on behalf of your leaders.

Wake up, Write4U. Start being your own person again. Start thinking. Stop telling lies to protect those people who are more than capable of arguing their positions on their own behalf. They don't actually need a follower who only half-understands them; they won't thank you for making up your own hodge-podge version of their views, I assure you.

If you're really interested in science, why not ask some questions and try to learn some real science? Sure, it will require a little more effort than trawling the interwebs looking for random quotes in support of some gurus. But it will very probably be more useful to you in the long run, for all kinds of reasons.

 

Wrtie4U,

You're just proving my point. You refuse to listen. You subscribe to nonsensical pseudoscience views, like this one.

You might have the best imagination in the world, but that won't make you a scientist.

That's just a mantra - part of the creed somebody has taught you. When will you start to think?

There's no shame in lacking knowledge or expertise in something. The shame lies in pretending to know things you don't know. The waste lies in being unwilling to explore better ways of thinking about things.

If that's all it is, why were you doing back flips to invent your own pseudoscience definition of what that term might mean?

If you're going to accuse me of lying, please quote the lie you are referring to. Use my words, not yours, to demonstrate the lie.

Again, you misunderstand. I'm trying to give you a metaphorical shake, to see if some sense can get through the cracks. So far, nothing has managed to penetrate the shields.

Why do you think that being older than somebody else means that you deserve their respect? Isn't respect something that needs to be earned?

No, I'm not part of a cabal. What are you referring to, specifically? Who is "hysterically" defending a status quo? Which status quo are you complaining about, exactly? How do you think I'm connected into the conspiracy?

I think you're losing touch with reality, if not already gone.

 

That question doesn't even make sense.