Re: If someone just took a minute to listen to me

On Mar 20, 3:25 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 20, 4:05 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Mar 20, 1:01 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 20, 2:55 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 20, 12:35 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 20, 2:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 20, 12:22 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 20, 2:09 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

3. You haven't suggested any replacements for direct variables to use
instead of mass, duration, distance.

Monads.

Hmm.. this is like saying instead of calling a dog a dog, I'll call it
a hair four legged animal...

Hmmm.... you can change the variables anyway you want... its really
just an obfuscation... not a revelation...

True.

What happens next is the innovation.

You have variables (yes, you can call them whatever you want) in a
computer program, changing according to a set of rules, and then
through the resulting complexity you find a set of information, a
*second* set of information apart from the original information held
in the variables.

The last step is to falsify the computer program (a nicely contained
mathematical hypothesis) with experiments.

Forgot to add.

The last step is to falsify the computer program (a nicely contained
mathematical hypothesis) with experiments by predictions from the
*second* set of information, information that is not stored
numerically in the variables, but found more abstractly within the
complexity.

Complete and utter goddamn word salad, from start to finish.

Word salad. Nice meme. Good protector.

You throw
around buzzwords like complexity as an attempt to shove everything you
cannot explain and do not understand under the rugh.

Buzzword. Nother good protector.

I understand complexity.

Go into denial.

Your still spouting the same idiotic bull*** as before.
Go away again.

Stay in denial.

Hey, I got my wish.

Denial of what?

That I understand enough about complexity to suggest a novel use for
it.

Since you haven't demonstrated an understanding, denial is OK.
Especially since you have spent four years showing you do not
understand.

Actually, you've spent that amount of time coming up with excuses to
not understand.

I understand what I mean perfectly well.

Of course you think you do! Now make a quantitative prediction. You've
had four years - lets' see something.

Hell, you've had all day and you only asked for a minute, and you
still have nothing!
.