mooeypoo

Hey omnimutant, welcome to the forums. The Big Bang isn't my specialty, so don't take anything I say at face value (Actually, don't take anyone's words at face value, that's a general good advice for science), but I do have some thoughts I thought I'd contribute to this: (1) First, the Big Bang is supported by more than "just" the expansion of the universe. Check out Martin's awesome collection of links and articles about the support and explanation for the Big Bang, among other things. It might explain more (2) Second, if you suggest that matter is "added" to the universe, you need to find where it is coming from, otherwise you're in contradictions to the laws of thermodynamics... (3) Even if matter is added to the universe ('increase' in the mass of stars) - wouldn't that just add to the pull of gravity and, hence, actually result in the complete OPPOSITE result of "contraction" ? It sounds logical to me, based on what I do read and know, but I might be missing something here, so I call forth the Physics experts and Astronomy buffs to explain this better These are just general points I thought of.. ~moo

That's a fascinating philosophical question, but here is my take on it: (1) That doesn't mean an intelligent being (or ANY being) created matter, even for the reason that it then creates the problem of who created it. (2) The fact the human brain is limited like that (hence, we assume everything has a beginning) does not mean that's the way things are. It is just as likely that matter always existed, and time itself was created (in the big bang), hence the beginning "started" with time and not with matter, rather than matter has 'popped' into existence, or was created by something else. Just my own opinion, though... as is usually dealing with philosophy (as opposed to science) ~moo ~moo

Why is real time imaginary space? Where does that come from, I don't understand.. it's based on what? ... why are you saying this? Based on what? Proof? Substantiation? Reasoning? Anything? Uh.. ooookay. I guess I'll tell my Dean to hold off on my degree, then, ah? ~moo

Uh... the amount of evidence that proves evolution is truly overwhelming. I think you should research it a bit more, or at the very least watch the movie iNow posted. I'm going to allow myself to be pesky in this, because it's important: Evolution is not an opinion. It's a conclusion. It's a VERY VERY well based theory (not "just" a theory -- a FULL BLOWN explanation) that is well supported in facts. Many facts from different fields, in fact. We didn't come from apes, we share a common ancestor with apes. That's a VERY big distinction. It's also proven by genetics (genome information shared between us and various types of apes and other animals, supported the "tree" of changes evolution describes). ID is a nontheory. ID proponents TRY hard to claim it is, but it's not. It's untestable, and it's not giving us any new information or new ways of discovering anything. It also has absolutely no math in front or behind it. I would love to see what you were shown as the math behind ID.. there's no such thing. Try to find it, you'll see that it's either nonexistent, or bad math. It can't be, because ID has no CLAIM behind it other than a negative claim -- Evolution can't happen, so God did it. Oh.. sorry.. not god. (fix) cdesign proponentsists (watch the movie) ~moo

Yes, you think therefore you are. Now prove it. Is it just me who is wondering why you chose to post in a SCIENTIFIC ORIENTED FORUM when you clearly don't read the rules or wish to follow the EMPIRICAL (ahem. Empirical. E-M-P-I-R-I-C-A-L...) scientific method..? Just wondering. Really. Seriously now. Gobblygook. Hello? Rules..? ~moo

Thats because CLEARLY he has no answers. Just opinions. That are not based on anything scientific. Oh.. damn.. here I go being pesky again. Me and my demand for scientific methodoloy. <sigh> And in a ScienceForums no less. tsk tsk on me. ~moo

I don't debate trolls. I also appears to not be the only one who thinks you have no answers, Graviphoton. You havent answered many, and I would suggest you re-post the aweful illegible response to my post, since whatever answers you have there, I've been trying to figure out who said what and when. I'm not doing it anymore. I'm not here to teach you what scientific method and peer review is. I believe I was quite a patient woman with you. I don't expect you to get rid of that pesky personal-attack attitude of yours, either, seeing as we've tried to get you to learn quotes and you intentionally ignore them, and my gender and you intentionally ignore it. Not that I care, I'm just pointing it out. The fact that we spend this thread arguing whether or not you have answers and whether or not you should share them with us just shows how much you don't have any answers. I'm not the only one who asked you to.. notice? Ahem. Bzz. Rules. ~moo

Bottom line: You don't have answers, you would rather do a tort-retort 'trying-to-confuse' session, while hoping we forget you have no answers to what we ask you. Nice theory you have there. (yes, I know tort-retort is not quite english. Neither are large parts of this thread)

I don't think you lack intelligence, Graviphoton, and I also don't think your as old as to blame bad memory. Since we've discussed the issue of proper citation of other people's posts at least 5 or 6 times already, and you each time start to use them and then, for reasons that I can guess but will not bother, stop using them, I will just state right here that I believe you're doing this on purpose. It's getting tedious to try and follow where you're taking people's sentences other than to get into the incomprehensible content of your thesis. I know it's easier to confuse us than to answer, but it's against the rules, it's tedious, and it's very - very - annoying. So. Other than reporting this (again!) I'm allowing myself a few days to try and put to order the multiple messy posts you posted, after which people (notice: not only me!) ask you to use quotes, and you ignore them. Again. It's part of trolling. It's against the rules. Bzz, remember? ~moo

Stop making things personal. I've spent quite a lot of time analyzing your claims, and unlike you, I stayed away from things I am not an expert in (like your.. weird math). Don't be a child, Graviphoton. I've raised points both from my own 'mind' and from points OTHERS had made in those threads you try so hard to forget. Answer them. I know it's tough to answer them. I know. Try. I'm not the only one who asked you to. A few times. Are you claiming you have no answers? ~moo

Of course you do. Fine. Yet again, here are my *initial* analysis, ignoring the mathematics for now since until the premises are clearer and the conclusions sorted out, the math is utterly irrelevant. I don't mean to be picky, but you really should be more specific. There are many types of theories and many hypotheses in relation to Spacetime. Many of them are actually not quite mainstream and are, still, hypotheses. If you claim such a thing, you need to specify which of the theories you are about to critique or replace. Even if to make sure we are all on the same "page". So your premise relies on the mind being separate than the physical brain? You need to prove this, or at the very least give an explanation of why this is valid. The existence of the mind as a separate entity is NOT something people just take for granted. In fact, scientific advancements currently lead towards the strict connection between physiology and what we call 'consciousness'. Hence that consciousness is NOT separated from the physiology, is inherently IN the brain and dependent on neural circuits. If you disagree with that, you need to first explain why and base it on actual science, not just your own opinion. ... what? Spacetime is both space and time. I'm not sure about this proposal since I haven't read what it says (And I couldn't find it online... do you have anywhere we can read it more thorroughly?) but it sounds a bit like wordsalad. Spacetime is Space+time connected. To say that spacetime has no space and no time is illegible. I don't understand what it means that it doesnt exist in time or space but we have points in our 'bubble' of perception that allows for degrees of frteedom... to do what? To see timespace? To be timespace? To notice timespace?... I'm sure the proposal has more merit behind it than "Space Time Continuum" (Startrek?) and the wordsalad that the rest of that paragraph entails. Just give us the original proposal, please, so we can understand what it is you're proposing after them. Didn't you just claim that spacetime we percieve does not exist in time and space? I don't quite understand which "internal" and "external" spacetime you are talking about now. Reference theory is a bit clearer, but the jump from spacetime to the statement, or idea of reference, hence - "Points-of-View dictate reality" - is quite a large one. You still need to explain what is the 'visual bubble of spacetime'. If you claim that what we see is not what exists, you need to base it, not just claim it. If you claim that our perception is a bubble that represents the reality (pretty much the same as the other claim) you need, again, to support it with science. Explain that term and SUPPORT it with science before you move on to build premises from it, let alone conclusions on top of it. .... I don't know where you take that quote from, but it makes no sense. For one, visual bubble is not defined (as I pointed out before). What corresponding variables? What law? what's t? why the square? who said this and in what context?? Where do you bring this? Where's your supporting EVIDENCE? Facts? Observations? Explanations? ANYTHING? You just throw around a claim, call it a sentence, and make out math to support it. Besides, I utterly disagree. The proposed relationship between the mind's gamma wave at sleep is proportional to the proper posture of an adult male pan paniscus when it is in its verge of externalizing his internal fluids from digesting local flora. The variables accompanied are in direct and opposite relation to the square root of the size and length of the pan paniscus external organ when it is lifted and ready to pick a fruit, hence the equation given proves its fruitfulness. See? I can do it too. You're jumping to mathematical jibberish before you even set your premises straight. I am not going to deal with taht math right now, since it's utterly irrelevant, on top of being illegible. I, too, can add some nifty (and if I try, probably CORRECT) mathematical equasions to my pan paniscus mambo jumbo. That doesn't make any of my thesis correct. Or legible. Or english. My goodness, Max Born is twisting in his grave right now. You now have successfully set forth a "link" to Quantum Physics -- all that without even trying (let alone SUCCEEDING) to prove that such relation exists. How, in zeus name, are you going from Space time, to Mind being another dimention, to quantum physics, is beyond me. And not just me. The entire of physics. The MIND is *not* proven to have ANY relations with quantum physics, specifically since the MIND being SEPARATE than the brain and the body is not proven either. Get your premises straight, Graviphoton. (All these, btw, are repetitions on claims not only I have made. Visit the other threads to see all the people who begged you for explanations on the same exact problems before. Ignoring them will NOT get us to forget they are problems.) Right. I will let others with more strict knowledge about this deal with this one more fully, and leave the comments I have on that ... paragraph... for later. Now you're just being magical, mystical, and utterly unscientific. Anything you want to know is behind a variable? WHAT!? Where.. is the proof? Where is the road to explaining how you reach this conclusion? Your reasoning? Your basis in (oh..) reality? How would you claim that we can theoretically calculate the "wave vector of entire galaxies" - and the UNIVERSE! - with this variable or vector!? you're making absolutely no sense. NONE. So at the very least give us the reasoning behind such a grandiose proposal. Is this a citation from somewhere? (you added [part] as if you complete a quote)..? if so - from where? Regardless, however, now you start talking about unification of physics. A unified theory. You're jumping alllllll over the place now. From spacetime is not space time, to mind being separate from the brain, to mind having another dimention, to knowing everything from a single vector/variable, to having a unified theory. Where is the reasoning behind linking each of these? you keep raising more and more issues in Physics, none of which you explain or give any type of reasoning to your use of. NONE. You don't even go to premises, Graviphoton, you just state your opinion and go straight to the math and conclusion. That's not science. Again that illegible law. If/then statements need to include a legible scientific thesis, not a wordsalad that works for you. Explain your rule before trying to test it. For that matter, if the pan paniscus is directly related to the opposite square root of of the size and length, then whatever i say now has no meaning because the beginning of my paragraph has absolutely no meaning. At all. Even though "Pan Paniscus" is a real animal. I'm glad it seems totally logical that we have a few things to consider. I personally think that we have quite a lot of things to prove before we consider anything. And now you introduce consciousness into the mix. Is that the same as 'mind'? What is it? Is that separate than the mind or the brain? Is it separate from the human body or is it part of it? Is it part of our perception? Those are NOT things that science just "accepts". They are DEBATED. You need to deal with this and explain what you call consciousness, how you define it, and prove why it is separate from the physical - or why it isn't. The rest of the paragraph is you making claims without proof again. Collapse of the wave-function is a theorised phenomenon, NOT A PROVEN ONE. If it could even BE proven. You have too many unsupported claims you just ignore their problematic state and go on and on into more and more conclusions. It's just invalidating your theory more and more as you go if you don't deal with them. Proof? How do you know it's the only time real time models can be used? Did you wittness it? What are you basing it on? It's not explained properly. Also, how do you know that is the only time things are real? Didn't you say reality is objective? What, it's temporarily objective? THis is the only time it's not objective? What do you mean by "Real"? Real for everything, or real for an individual? Does that mean we all live in an illusion all the time and only THIS is when things are real? This is a GREAT philosophical argument, but it's FAAAAAR from being scientific. Where is the proof for this? You should refresh yourself on what is empirical. What does that mean? a unique arrow? Do you mean directionality of time? What does *THAT* mean? Can time go any other way? Are there 'directions' for time? Nice hypothesis, but it is, AGAIN, not proven. Surely not in this post. If it is any other place, I suggest you start citing where. And you have not "quantized" consciousness, since you haven't DEFINED consciousness or what YOU mean when you talk about consciousness. You might want to believe you have, but you haven't. Stop ignoring this problem, it's - at the very LEAST - the fifth or sixth time I have seen someone (including me but not only me) point this out to you. You also have absolutely no proof or explanation or ANYTHING to the proposed relation between consciousness and spacetime. You spoke about spacetime, gave some math, assumed we all know exactly what you mean with "mind" and "mind having its own dimention" and jumped to the conclusion that space time and consciousness (undefined) are correlated. Huh? So.. conscious space time is different than 'regular' spacetime, that does not include space or time other than specific points where we're allowed to be free. Did I get that right? So when you say the "Conscious spacetime" do you mean one of these points? Do you mean the subjective experience of the unvierse? Do you mean that precious variable-connection to the mind-dimension consciousness-link that you spoke of? "There is no reality without perception of reality" -- Really? And you support this on.. what? That the mind is in its own dimension? The above paragraph is a huge leap taken after all the other huge leaps. At this rate, you're jumping through thin air. ... egh. Again.. leaps, mixing of terms, and a huge salad of all the existing and proposed and imaginary theories. Perhaps, but you haven't proven or based your assumption that what we observe is not a current projection of "external" spacetime (nor have you DEFINED external spacetime as opposed to 'internal' spacetime, or by itself, may I remind you). What, like world^2 ? ... I don't even know what to say to this statement. The reason matter and energy "cant exist" without vacuum and vise-versa is because you can't DEFINE them without one another. Vacuum is the LACK of matter and energy. By definition. There is no real vacuum in space. Only partial vacuum. Vacuum is a WORD we INVENTED to define a situation where there is no matter. It's like saying "Color and Red cannot exist without one another". Duh? And again with the time vector of the mind -- that is not defined, not explained, not proven, and you have yet to show how the "time vector of the mind" is different than, say, the "time vector of the universe" or "the time vector of reality" or whatever time vector else you want. And you have NOT proven it exists. You haven't even proven that the mind has a different time frame to REQUIRE a differen "arrow" of time vector than "reality". HUUUUUUUUGE Claim here, and absolutely NO supporting data, not even supporting hypotheses for it. It's a well known philosophical claim, and it's NOT empirical science. By FAR. Ignoring all the same non-defined claims you hagve there -- 'found to be equal' how? What's the process in your math, or any other process that made this amazing discovery be "found" ? Obviously. The only trouble is that the non-existing premises this mathematical ideas are based on are utterly unscientific and unbased. I won't get into the math, again, for obvious (and explained above) reasons. I will just point out AGAIN that you gave no definition to "External", "internal" dimensions or the difference between them. I assume that by 'dimensions' you mean, again, 'spacetime'. Otherwise, you have yet ANOTHER term to explain and prove. Yes, we must. Why? Math at an irrelevant point of the theory. Ignored. I don't see it, but I didn't get into the math because it's (AGAIN) irrelevant. Your premises make no sense to make the math relevant. I know a nifty trick where 2+2 equals 5, not 4. That doesn't mean I have 5 toes in my right leg. Now we're into superluminal speeds? Speeds in general.. in.. what relation? Time? Energy? Movement? The mind? And I'm not sure I understand what you mean by having 'no evidence that anything moves at all'... have you looked at the closest highway to where you're at lately? It appears that in the big scale and the small scale things move all the time. Atoms, molecules, subatomic particles... why do you claim there is no evidence things move? Philosophically speaking? Well, philosophically speaking there's no proof for anything at all, including your existence. It's still not science. --- Now, the rest of your post is, in my part, repetitive. You use the same unbased, unfamiliar, unfounded, unscientific terms as if they're absolute facts without ever relating to the problems that they raise or the fact that no one has any clue what the math stands for. There. I've made an effort to summarize for you the major problems in your theory - AGAIN - so you don't have to go to all those other threads about consciousness and mind that you have openned in the forums and gather them all up. Now before you add anything to the theory, or correct the math, or explain the conclusion - you first need to deal with the PREMISES and the opinions that you have that are NOT supported and not dealt with in this entire long post/thread/thesis. I'm going to let the physics experts deal with the mid-claims you made here about energies, dimensions and Max Born). Good luck. ~moo

Oh my zeus I was SOOOO looking for that program, Thanks iNow! I heard about it when it came out but it wasn't yet available online. Awesomeness Thanks!

Well, maybe. I have a general criticism for all religions. *all* organized religions, including the organized religion of Judaism. I'm just saying that Judaism is a bit different than Christianity and some other religions in that in includes *MORE* than just a religion. To be honest, I don't care what individuals believe in or do for their own rites of worship (the fact a lot of religions, including christianity and judaism, "stole" stuff from more ancient cultures and religions is quite known) - I just claim that it's not 'overriding' the fact that there IS a big group that tries, despite the religious folk, to evolve into the future. There are many messages in each holiday - some choose to stick religion into them, some choose to celebrate them as cultural meanings (like me). The point, imho, is to make sure that there is enough freedom to allow both. It's not simple at all, but I think it's getting there. Slowly... very slowly... ~moo

Well, the main problem is that if this is possible, anything is possible. For that matter, it is also possible we were created yesterday by the Giant Unicorn Mastah from the 11th Dimension. He created us with memories and cultural-memory of 3000 years, but in fact we were poofed into existence yesterday. It's possible because the Giant Unicorn Mastah is all doing and all possible. I'm not saying I believe it, and I am not saying the GUM theory is how things are done, but it's possible! .. Same logic, different conclusion. Which is right? We can't ever know, to be honest. Unless, of course, we use an objective (or.. as objective as possible) method of finding out facts about our existence, and that's where the scientific method comes in. In the sceintific method there's no room for such unproven unprov'able (hence, impossible to prove, ever) theses because they are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if we were created yesterday with memories of centuries - we could NEVER know that. We could only know what we analyze from the data around us. And that data gives us the information that we evolved, that life is natural, that physics and geology and historical sciences give us much more answers than religion or faith about our origins. I mean.. what, exactly, would it help us to "know" that we were created by an omnipotent being X years ago with the illusion of natural-process... does it help us find anything new about ourselves, or the natural processes, or phenomena, or more medicine or biological or any other scientific advancements? Nope. So.. why bother? ~moo

I just found this article, btw: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3045322,00.html about how secular jews in Israel turn to civil marriages and "alternative" cultural ceremonies. Although they are not considered by the law, the fact people offer - and take - these, helps the political struggle to make them part of the law. The supreme court in Israel has made some interesting over-turns for laws that were, so far, religious (like gay rights, for example), so there is hope. I don't think defining Israel as a strictly religious country is a fair assessment. I also don't think it's a full fledged democracy. On the other hand, it's only 60 years old. America seemed to struggle with racism and ant-gay laws much longer. I don't mean this as a taunt, I'm just saying that it seems to me that sometimes Israel seems to be judged by different criteria than other countries, and that's a bit unfair. It's a new country, and it wasn't built on the religion; on the contrary, it was built, at first, on the ideas of the culture and protecting the people from racism that existed. The turn into religious rules actually grew when the religious parties worked their way into the system. For example: When Israel was 'born', the agreement with the Orthodox jews was that each year 500 of their brightest students are given a "free pass" from joining the army. The Orthodox claimed that a 3-year army service leads a student away from their religion, so the founders of the country gave a 'pass' for 500 students. Today, however, the orthodox jews take advantage of the passes and the rules and just don't sign up at all. Some of them CLAIM to study while what they actually do is go to work ("under the table", too, because they're not ALLOWED to work) - which also means that (1) they're not serving their country like everyone else and (2) they don't pay taxes on their income. We actually have bumper stickers in Israel that say "Together in the Bank, Alone in the Tank" --- reffering to the orthodox jews who seem to try and take over the rules of the country without really contributing to it. It's a battle, it's far from over, but it's also not out of the question to get a better, more pluralistic cultural judaism out of it. The fact that Jews keep debating the meaning of judaism is, by itself, contributing to the pluralism of the culture, and eventually the country. A lot of people don't know that there's a very large group in Israel that fights off religious intolerance. People just hear on the news about the orthodox and religious and racist rules, and not about the other side that does exist (and quite strong, relatively). And about the definition of a Jew -- well, it's not simple to either side. One of the leading cases to raise this debate in the first place was of a priest trying to come to Israel after the holocaust: The entire point was that Jews, wherever they are, if they are running from prosecution or attack, or whatever, can get to safehaven in Israel. It's a noble idea, even if it's not being implemented correctly (show me one country that implements its values perfectly after 60 years of existence...). Then, a priest showed up and claimed he deserved citizenship. He stated that he was born jewish but his parents gave him away when he was a baby to a monestary, where he was raised as a christian through teh war, which is how he was saved. He didn't define himself as a jew, he defined himself as a christian. He had no interest ni Judaism up until the borders of Israel were open almost 'automatically' (you become a citizen almost emmediately, if you request for it, if you are jewish) in israel. That truly openned the discussion about what is a Jew. Some claimed he is jewish, because he was born jewish.. some claimed he converted, therefore he isn't - but that means that judaism is a religion, not only a culture - etc etc. The discussion itself is useful. Judaism, as a whole, is 'growing', from a religion to a more pluralistic culture, carrying the orthodox behind it screaming and kicking. The discussion itself acts like a sort of 'checks and balances' for the religious extremists who try to hijack the country for their own agenda. Just like the discussion itself about ethics, the government control, racism and homophobia in America is, by itself, a sort of 'checks and balances' to get the people aware and 'growing' with their own conscience. These things take time. ~moo

I completely lost your point, CarolAlynn, you keep moving the goal post and changing your claims. Plus, you said this: and then you state this: Bzz. Obviously, you haven't read the links, as they are answering these well known (FAAAR from 'new') claims. These "flagellum" and cell claims are repetitive ID claims that evoution explained a long time ago. ID Proponents just ignore the answers. Uhm.. what, exactly, is your point? I think we are beating around the bush for the past few (hm) posts, because we answer a question you then change.. ~moo

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

Actually, I disagree. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. I think you might be reffering to abiogenesis and evolution, and though I, personally, don't believe in God, I can see how someone could believe in a creator AND still not ignore evolution. Still, though, ID is bull. It's also not representative of religious belief -- there are religious folk who dismiss ID and accept evolution; the theories cannot be supported together: One states speciation is NATURAL and one claims that speciation is NON-Natural. That's contradictory. I see what you're saying, I just disagree. Also, we should really separate the theory of the ORIGIN of life to the theory of evolution, which is the CHANGE of an organism (leading to speciation, etc). ID proponents LOVVVEEEE linking the two, because it creates a nice straw-man they can then disprove. But evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life. It speaks only about the *change* of life forms. ~moo

Excuse me, but the poll makes no sense. Agree with what? There's no controversy in the scientific community. Evolution is proven and supported. Intelligent Design, and the "controversy" that it "raises" is an invention of the ID proponents for the sake of political advancements. What is the poll asking? Uhm... where.. is the question, then? The entire point of the ID "controversy" is that the people who claim it do not know evolution. They claim they do, but they don't. They use the same claims over and over again, making blatant straw-men while they're at it, because they can't quite disprove evolution any other way. Evolution is well supported in science. From biology to links in fossils - there are no missing links, each fossil we find only puts more and more support into the theory. So.. if you understand and "believe" it (uhm.. I wouldn't quite call it 'belief' when it's such a structured and well founded scientific theory, but I can accept that term, I guess) - where, exactly, is the question or problem? ~moo

Does that mean we're starting from scratch on this theory? There are lots of remarks that are quite to-the-point on the other threads. I think locking them might be a better idea than deleting them, so we can use the references, at least, to the points made, instead of again repeating ourselves in a brand new thread.

Your conclusions were not the problem as much as the PREMISES. The premises are still wrong. Nooo... you CLAIM to show. You didn't base this on anything other than your claims, and repetitive "but but"s. Those don't count. nnnooooo nonono. You posted the math, it's the SAME math you posted in the other threads, it's the same math we challenged you on in the other threads. It's the same math you keep refusing the either explain, or drop using. The burden of proof is not on us, Graviphoton. It's on you. Own up to it. That too is in the rules. Well, explain it then, because other than you, no one knows what it means. But I must insist that we take a step BACK. (AGAIN!) -- the problem with this theory is the PERMISES, first and foremost. The math might be a problem, but even if it WAS legible, it's still irrelevant if your premises are null. Fix the premise, explain it, or make sure you base it on something more than your gut feeling, then we'll discuss protoscience mathematics. ~moo

That's philosophy, not physics. It's a philosophical thought excercise, and as I pointed out in another thread (whichever it was on the same point), it's a very interesting thought exercise in philosophy. It's utterly irrelevant as a scientific theory, though. These are issues that are being discussed in philosophy and metaphysics, but none have been proven. I am not sure there is a way to prove it, either. It's an opinion. I share a different one, to be honest, one that cannot be disproven or proven either. that's the point. There doesn't seem to be a way to "pick" between YOUR opinion and MINE in this issue. That's why it's not scientific. That's why it's unproven. Nice try, though. Actually, that acts AGAINST your theory, since a VALID theory needs to be refutable. There must be something - that if happens/discovered, refutes the theory. Otherwise it's not a scientific theory. Other than that, the idea (NOT a fact.. IDAE... philosophy! not science!) that we observe things objectively and hence see the world as an objective experience is not, in itself, enough for this theory. What does it mean, exactly, that we experience the world objectively? Is it just a matter of perspective, or do we ACTUALLY create things we see? If we both see a horse - we both see it differently, but --HOW SO? Do you see a horse one way and me another, or do you just see it in a different angle? What is responsible for this 'difference'? "Quantum Physics" or just our subjective and individual TRANSLATION of the neural data fired in our PHYSICAL brains? These things are unproven, or, at the very least, uncertain. If you think you can set these straight - you need to explain the BASIS of your conclusions on this matter. It's not enough just to share your opinion and state a conclusion on it. ~moo

<sigh> the same type of math, that we TOLD YOU was utterly unknown to anyone. We have people with Math phDs here, and they have no clue what you're talking about or what type of math you're trying to display. You were ASKED about it. A few times. Quite a few. You ignored, or tried to argue, and now you use it AGAIN in this thread. You again use consciousness and mind when you were TOLD that these were unproven - and that if you use them as part of your premise, your theory is null. You use them again. You were told that peer review is not personal, and that you should stop getting into silly personal attacks. You were even suspended, partially over this matter. You do it again. your theory, my friend, is unscientific. Start basing it, start citing, stop plagiarisng, and stop avoiding the problems that people raise in your concepts. I am *NOT* going to waste my time (yet again) in summarizing all the problems that you already KNOW exist in your theories. Go back to the threads you openned back, and mark them one by one. Until their solved, you can open a trillion new threads with slight variations on whatever conclusion you want, it's still going to be void. We didn't get into the conclusion of your "thesis" in past threads so much, because the problem was, first and foremost, in your PREMISES. They are still problematic. The theory is STILL VOID. It is the same idea, with a slightly different "take". This is not your personal rant forum. Stop posting multiple threads with teh same problems in it, and start dealing with the problems in your theory. READ. THE. RULES. BZZ. ~moo

No, it's not, it's the same idea (the fact you introduced a few more items make it a slight rewrite, not a different idea). The math is still incomprehensible. You were asked to use proper math in the other few threads you opened about this. Opening another will not lighten the burden. And your logic is still as it was in the other posts. Your lack of basis as to the existence of consciousness, soul, mind, whatever else that you claim exists and mainstream science either disagrees or have yet to decide on the matter is still present. You have yet to have proven ANY of the issues we have discussed so many times before. You keep ignoring them, as if they don't matter, when they are the biggest problem this theory has. Switching threads on us will not lighten the burden you have on proving your theory's validity. Presenting the same problem-filled theory from a slightly different angle and with minor changes is *NOT* equal to presenting a new theory. It's not the first time, either. It's trolling. Stop it. Oh.. wait... "Bzzz". Read the rules. ~moo