Leaderboard

That was my original phrasing, There's your full stop. But It was ignored, so I dumbed it down.

Yes, but the claim I am challenging is not a "detail". It is the core of your idea. If you want to change the meaning of "complexity" to something so far removed from most people's understanding, you need to have a solid argument, otherwise the whole idea collapses.

The thing that you're not considering... that NO-ONE'S considering is that the Moon is tidally locked. Since the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth, we'd never see tidal friction caused by a "rotating" body. I've only ever heard one scientist talk about it in a way that made sense. He stated that if Mars had a moon that was at least 10% of it's diameter, Mars would still support life.

The heart of the problem is using a language model to substitute for studying science. ChatGPT probably tells you how wonderful your "theory" is, but popular science articles abuse the word. A real theory is the strongest explanation science can ever have. You don't just "theorize" and then call it your theory. Real theories are the result of many scientists experimenting, analyzing, testing, reviewing over time, knowing one false result can disprove the whole thing, but thousands of positives will still never "prove" the explanation is correct. It will always be a theory, which is always just our best supported explanations. You also disparage philosophy by claiming this is a work of philosophy. It has none of the rigor philosophy uses. Philosophy and mathematics are the only places you'll find formal logic and "proofs", they don't exist in science outside those disciplines. You should be able to answer questions about your own ideas, especially the simple ones like, "What did you mean by this exactly?" If the AI knows your framework so well, as well as all the science information from the web, why can't it tell me what units you're using for psychological energy? Are you using joules, electron volts, calories, therms, foot-pounds? In atomic physics and computational chemistry, the Hartree is a unit of energy. Are you using that?

Haha, you got a better reply from me this time because this theory has a lot less of the pompous bullshit. I can actually understand what you are saying, for the most part. My guess is you wrote this one yourself, whereas on the other thread you allowed a chatbot to have a go at writing it. Chatbots always seem to write like a weak student, trying to pad out his poor essay with grandiose circumlocutions to make it seem more impressive. We've seen it so many times on this forum since chatbots appeared. In fact, the best essays and papers are written with succinctness and clarity. But now to the content of your post. You seem to be redefining "complexity" in a way that is far from intuitive. I think you will need to justify the basis on which you associate complexity with concentration of mass or energy. I did not have any concept of beauty in mind, as it happens. I was thinking of the thousands of biochemical substances and reaction processes required for a single celled organism to function, compared to the relatively simple and inert structure (face-centred cubic) of a crystal of lead.

I will continue to probe my own work. Fair enough.

Ah, that explains why everything you write reads like pompous bullshit. Good to know.

And you must understand the basics of deduction and learn to read with comprehension.

There was an error with the post button. I apologize for the spam. I don't see how mathematics can be used in the framework but I appreciate any input. I think what is needed is social scientific empirical rigor to further enhance the arguments.

Equations of state can't help you if there is no spacetime curvature due to expansion for the given reason and there is also the cosmological principle. You choose to ignore my basic logic as well as the plain errors and contradiction in the paper, I choose to ignore the rest of your paper. We're even.