(continued...)
You have yet to demonstrate that you understand what is being discussed here. You can't articulate what my objections are to Tegmark's MUH, for instance, even though I have attempted to explain them to you several times. I don't think the problem's on my end.
Have you formed no opinions at all on the likely mental capacities of the people whose posts you have read?
Important note: please understand that a lack of capacity in one area does not imply lack of capacity in other areas. Your failure to grasp what Tegmark is claiming about the nature of reality says nothing about your capacity for being a world-class accountant, for instance. You might also be a brilliant swimmer, or something, for all I know. But this stuff, here, obviously isn't your forte.
Also, please understand that I am never critical because a person lacks the capacity for having a useful discussion about a particular topic on this forum. I am critical of those who pretend to capacities they do not demonstrate.
Which brings us to this:
Points (a) and (b) demonstrate, once again, that you lack the capacity for discussing the topic at hand. But let's leave that to one side for now.
Point (c) strikes me as a sort of nervous twitch. It's the sort of thing you come out with whenever somebody puts a question to you that you don't understand, that you think you need to respond to (note: not answer, just respond to).
Your non-answer to Pinball1970's question makes no sense at all. It's just word salad, again. At some level - unless you actually have less mental capacity that I suspect you have - you must have been aware of that when you wrote it. But, just in case I'm wrong, here's what wrong with it.
You said "convert everything into relational values". But your claim all along has been that everything is already "relational values". If that's the case, then there's nothing to convert.
And then there's what I pointed out, but you ignored, in posts #151 and #152, above: that the term "relational values" has no actual meaning. It literally means nothing when you use it. It's just an empty place-holder that only conveys the meaning "something should go here, but Write4U doesn't know what". And the same goes for "generic mathematical principles".
And look what happens when somebody calls you on your bullshit:
Obviously, when you post something, you're supposed to know - before you post it - what you're trying to say by writing it. An ex post facto rationalisation to yourself about what you might possibly have meant doesn't cut the mustard, Write4U.
And how about that rationalisation? What do we get from you, as far as that goes? Basic dictionary definitions of the individual words you used, but no explanation of what your intended meaning was when you strung them together. Of course, it would be silly to expect such an explanation from you because, I believe, when you write your word salad you don't actually have any particular meaning in mind. You just like to pretend you're communicating something complicated.
I don't know who you think you're fooling. It's not your readers here. Maybe it's yourself????
If the "constants" you are referring to are numbers, then I'm happy to agree with you that - yes - numbers are mathematical in essence. But that's stating the bleeding obvious.
Fractal: could be. It depends on how you define it.
A quantum: again, it could be. A quantum of sheep could be 3 sheep, which would be a mathematical quantity - a number. Which would be mathematical. But so what? It wouldn't make the sheep themselves mathematical.
If he is trying to do that, that's all well and good, but it's a completely unrelated topic that should be discussed in a different thread.
If you don't even understand the basics of the topic you said you wanted to discuss, even after months of years of discussion, that raises some questions for me about your mental competence, at least when it comes to being able to distinguish superficially similar claims from one another, when it is actually the underlying differences that are supposedly the point of debate.
You have yet to demonstrate that you understand what is being discussed here. You can't articulate what my objections are to Tegmark's MUH, for instance, even though I have attempted to explain them to you several times. I don't think the problem's on my end.
What we know about you is what we can gather from the content of your posts to this forum, Write4U. Believe it or not, those provide quite a lot of information on which people can form judgments about you, including your likely mental capacity.
Have you formed no opinions at all on the likely mental capacities of the people whose posts you have read?
Important note: please understand that a lack of capacity in one area does not imply lack of capacity in other areas. Your failure to grasp what Tegmark is claiming about the nature of reality says nothing about your capacity for being a world-class accountant, for instance. You might also be a brilliant swimmer, or something, for all I know. But this stuff, here, obviously isn't your forte.
Also, please understand that I am never critical because a person lacks the capacity for having a useful discussion about a particular topic on this forum. I am critical of those who pretend to capacities they do not demonstrate.
Which brings us to this:
Pinball1970 said:
Notice how Pinball1970 asked you a straightforward question, directly pertinent to the topic you said you wanted to discuss. Notice how your reply (a) does not attempt to answer the question that he asked you, (b) fails - again - to engage with the main sticking point in the current discussion, and (c) just strings some random words together, pretending like they mean something when put together in that order.
Points (a) and (b) demonstrate, once again, that you lack the capacity for discussing the topic at hand. But let's leave that to one side for now.
Point (c) strikes me as a sort of nervous twitch. It's the sort of thing you come out with whenever somebody puts a question to you that you don't understand, that you think you need to respond to (note: not answer, just respond to).
Your non-answer to Pinball1970's question makes no sense at all. It's just word salad, again. At some level - unless you actually have less mental capacity that I suspect you have - you must have been aware of that when you wrote it. But, just in case I'm wrong, here's what wrong with it.
You said "convert everything into relational values". But your claim all along has been that everything is already "relational values". If that's the case, then there's nothing to convert.
And then there's what I pointed out, but you ignored, in posts #151 and #152, above: that the term "relational values" has no actual meaning. It literally means nothing when you use it. It's just an empty place-holder that only conveys the meaning "something should go here, but Write4U doesn't know what". And the same goes for "generic mathematical principles".
And look what happens when somebody calls you on your bullshit:
Somebody asked you what you meant by that word-salad nonsense of a sentence you wrote and your response to them is "What do you think it means"?
Obviously, when you post something, you're supposed to know - before you post it - what you're trying to say by writing it. An ex post facto rationalisation to yourself about what you might possibly have meant doesn't cut the mustard, Write4U.
And how about that rationalisation? What do we get from you, as far as that goes? Basic dictionary definitions of the individual words you used, but no explanation of what your intended meaning was when you strung them together. Of course, it would be silly to expect such an explanation from you because, I believe, when you write your word salad you don't actually have any particular meaning in mind. You just like to pretend you're communicating something complicated.
I don't know who you think you're fooling. It's not your readers here. Maybe it's yourself????
You clearly think you're doing something useful. But what "single principle" have you ever come up with and posted here, that makes any sense? What "regularities" are you trying to explain? I don't think you know, yourself.
I don't know what you mean by a "universal constant". Perhaps you are referring to physical constants, like Newton's gravitational constant? Or mathematical constants like pi?
If the "constants" you are referring to are numbers, then I'm happy to agree with you that - yes - numbers are mathematical in essence. But that's stating the bleeding obvious.
Gravity: wrong.
Fractal: could be. It depends on how you define it.
A quantum: again, it could be. A quantum of sheep could be 3 sheep, which would be a mathematical quantity - a number. Which would be mathematical. But so what? It wouldn't make the sheep themselves mathematical.
Reality. That's what.
- It does no such thing.
- That's not ironic. Or, at least, not in the way you thought it was.
Mathematics can't organise itself.
Do you believe it for any particular reason, or is it just one more random belief you have about Tegmark?
If he is trying to do that, that's all well and good, but it's a completely unrelated topic that should be discussed in a different thread.
