Re: Mike Helland Reading List

On Mar 26, 1:48 pm, theman <genericjoe2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 26, 4:07 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>

You strung random thoughts together and made little sense if you take
them charitably.. of course I can stick a bunch of monkeys in a room
with typewriters and eventually they'll compose Shakespeare... so your
a monkey composing science... congrats... let me send you a banana

Just off the top of your head.

oh yes, I am just starting...

How many of those do you know?

So far one monkey, you... and you seem to be a good example, you still
want the banana I offered you...

I think you're saying I'm a one of kind.

Thanks.



He also says "It is only after obtaining a mathematical formulation of
monadology that we are able to know whether monadology is consistent
with physics or not."

Yeah, and have you done that... no your to stupid to do that... this
also what people have been saying for years... to you and did you
listen no yourmikehellandboy genius who doesn't even know basic
differential equations...

Equations.

That's your religion.

No you just say that because you can't grok them..

You can grok equations through algebra and trigonometry and basic
calculus.

It's not magic.


So the fact that I understand math means its my religion,

You think the fields of math that you understand are essential to
grokking math.

That fact makes it religion.



no thats the only one you understood, in fact I can disprove your
conjecture without a computer... sorry...

Then you don't know what a conjecture is.

I've told you a thousand times.

You don't have the capacity to adapt your beliefs.



I comprehend your idea, and its wrong,

You don't comprehend the second set.

Actually I do, and its wrong as I have shown you...

Your understanding is wrong.

You said you've falsified my conjecture.

The conjecture isn't falsifiable.

You nitpicked my use of the word "virtual".

Pat yourself on the back.

That isn't a fatal criticism.
.