Write4U:
What a ridiculous false equivalence.
Explain why it is ridiculous, if that's your assertion. I say it is a highly applicable analogy that masterfully gets to the nub of what's wrong with your silly claims.
All you have in response, apparently, is a one-line dismissal with no reasoning, as if you didn't even understand what I wrote.
If you think my analogy is ridiculous, you need to explain why. What's wrong with it? Where's the flaw?
Do you really think I am that stupid?
Here's what I think, having observed you over a period of several months now, during this conversation.
I think that there are several plausible reasons for your refusal to address my objection to your core claim. Among them are the following.
1. You're so glued onto your own idea that you can't and won't bring yourself to look at it objectively, or even think it through. You're angry that you can't refute my objections to it, which you have tranferred into a more generalised anger that you direct towards me personally. It's like I'm questioning a deep-seated faith that you have - like a religion - and you've gone all defensive about it, to the point where you're no longer able to concentrate on anything but your anger over somebody daring to question your idea.
Alternatively:
2. You really are this stupid. You just don't understand what you're trying to argue or what the issue is that I have with your silly position.
Alternatively:
3. You've realised that your claim is unsustainable. You know I'm right and you're wrong. But you can't or won't admit that you're wrong and I'm right, because you can't stand for somebody else to be right. It annoys you. It makes you irrationally angry. So you double and triple down on the stupid.
Alternatively:
4. You're trolling and clowning, moving further and further away from a willingness to engage honestly and with integrity as the conversation with you progresses. It has ceased to matter to you whether you're right or wrong. All that matters now is your crusade against some kind of scientific "establishment" that has labelled you a crank.
Alternatively:
5. You have early-stage Alzheimer's syndrome and you're having cognitive issues that mean you're actually unable to recall posts you read early in the day, or yesterday. You're also unable to recall what you've argued before or what the responses to those arguments were. You find it hard to concentrate for long enough to think a response through. You can concentrate just long enough to google up some key words, then cut and paste and hope that some of it somehow addresses whatever it was that was put to you. But you have to be quick, or you lose track. "Did I just google that answer to that question? I can't be sure, so let me google a few more key words and cut and paste something else, just in case. Ooh, look! I found a shiny new word on a web page I googled! I don't know what it means, but better cut and paste it before I forget it was there! Now, where was I? Rainbows! Yes. Chaotic, naturally selected rainbows! Better paste in something about them, too, before I forget!"
The number of protons always determines the type of atom. It's called the "atomic number"
I
literally EXPLAINED TO YOU WHY THIS IS WRONG, and you have made no attempt to refute my explanation, other than to dismiss an analogy I used as "ridiculous", without giving any reasons and without putting any effort at all into it. In fact, you would have just ignored the whole thing, if not for my post gently reminding you that you might like to think about engaging honestly in the conversation.
Yes it does It is the value (strength) of the gravity that either keeps it there or not.
No! Numbers do not keep things in orbit! How could they? [TWENTY-ONE?]
Look, it's clear that you can't explain how a number could possibly do
anything in the physical world. I have now asked you at least twenty times to try to explain how it could, and each time you have tried to simply ignore my request, despite this being the CENTRAL sticking point in our disagreement.
Are you ready to give up and admit that you simply have no good answers?
Or do you plan on continuing with whatever this is? (Possibilities enumerated above.)
Perhaps you do not fully understand the depth of the claim.
Tegmark can take that up with me if it's an issue. Certainly,
you're no use on explaining the depth of your claim. On the contrary, you're unwilling to even discuss it.
Perhaps it is you who is loath to learn something new.
Stop clowning, Write4U.
There is a simple, unanswered objection to your claim that has been put to you no fewer than TWENTY times, and you have no adequate response to it. Yet you remain stuck and unable to admit that your belief in based on an empty, religious-like faith.
Don't try to insult me by claiming that I am loath to learn something new. Clearly,
you have nothing new to teach me. Not on purpose, anyway.
Of course but that is not what I said. You made that up.
You made a petty, unimportant objection. I pointed out that it was petty and unimportant.
Are you angry at me? Are you going to continue to be petty? Or are you going, at long last, to address the topic of this discussion?
Stop whining. That didn't go well for Magical Realist. I would advise against you modelling your pattern of responses on his.
Yep, the brain has prepared tself to execute that mathematical function instantaneously, just as a chameleon is no conscious of it use of triangulation.
Where is your evidence that the brain "executes mathematical functions" subconsciously and instantaneously?
Please don't use absurd examples to prove your point.
Nothing you have said shows that the example I used is absurd. In fact, you haven't even addressed it with any meaningful objection, so far.
All you have said is "My gut says that's ridiculous". Well, your gut doesn't seem to be able to tell what's ridiculous and what isn't, Write4U. You should try using your head, instead.
It seems that you reject the fact that humans have recognized the underlying mathematical logic in physics.
Recognised it? We
invented it
.
