Reference Theory and the Final Model

[insane_alien]

use quote tags or this will quickly become undreadable.

[Graviphoton]

As for bubble of existence, this refers to the world we come to see, this ''round'' sphere of perception, which is not the real world outside, but a strange hyperdimension of holography which has all the attributes observationally of an outside three-dimesional freedom. And a sense of time passing us by.

 

Don't interrupt me, and you will see i am answering each question seperately, thank you.

 

//The Relationship between Internal and External Spacetime (a.k.a Reference Theory)//

 

Mooey

 

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.

 

 

> Look, you need to put some thought into this. My theory isn't a walk in the park. Now, there is an internal spacetime, and the external spacetime. subjective and objective. Our consciousness may not exist in the external dimensions. This is what is meant here.

 

And i don't claim a new idea about the bubble of perception not being the outside world. It is a KNOWN FACT of nueroscience.

[Klaynos]

wtf does all your

 

//

 

and

 

>

 

Notation mean in your above post Graviphoton?

 

I'm guessing it's some attempt at distinguishing

quotes

?

[Graviphoton]

//‘’Every point recognized in our visual bubble of spacetime correlates to a point in external space and time.

The relationship between the two corresponding variables are found to be equal to the law, that the rule that

the absolute square of the variable t gives the probability of an act between an observer and an

observed system.’’ //

 

 

Mooey

 

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??

 

> If you had read it properly, this is my Law on the spacetime theory of consciousness. And it does make sense, it is just you are ignorant of quantum laws. And again, if you had read it correctly, i reduce the internal world and the external world down into variables, so we can deal with the two mathematically, but you will soon see what is meant by this, if you are still lost.

 

// \\ means my words he qouted,

 

[Mooey] - refers to what he said in response, and

 

> This is my reply

 

//The probability of a spacetime occurrence is proportional to the magnitude of the external time variable

with the internal time variable, which will be described as t and t’, so the probability equation is given

as//

 

Mooey

 

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.

 

> My Law must state this, and even if its not a real thing, even if its not true otherwise, it is still absolutely allowed by physics, and agrees with my line of thought, even if it doesn't with yours.

[iNow]

So, not only is the content of your posts becoming increasingly nonsensical, but now also your formatting. This is going nowhere fast.

 

You've agreed, at least 3 or 4 times already, to use the quote function this site provides. Are you just trying to see how annoying you can be?

[ydoaPs]

Dude,

tags work wonders.

[Graviphoton]

In factm Mooey, lets do it this way. You don't know enough about physics to be commenting about its validity. For instance,

 

t represents the internal experience

t' represents the external experience,

 

and the probability of an observational experience with the objective world, is found by sqauring the two. Ignoring why this is valid, and just flaming non-educated guesses to why it is wrong, you then flame the probability equations where irrelevant at the point of discussion. How was it? Do you even know what they say?

 

INow

 

Yes i was being annoying, because mooey posted a ridiculously long post, asking totally remedial questions not really due to the point of discussion. Well, until Mooey answers my last post, i won't speak to her again.

[mooeypoo]

In factm Mooey, lets do it this way. You don't know enough about physics to be commenting about its validity. For instance,

 

t represents the internal experience

t' represents the external experience,

 

and the probability of an observational experience with the objective world, is found by sqauring the two. Ignoring why this is valid, and just flaming non-educated guesses to why it is wrong, you then flame the probability equations where irrelevant at the point of discussion. How was it? Do you even know what they say?

 

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

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What is "internal experience" vs "external experience", and what does the "probability of an observational experience with the objective world" represent? As far as I know the terms are meaningless.

 

And Graviphoton, stop commenting on other people's physics knowledge like you're some kind of expert yourself. The incomprehensibility of your posts is a function of the way you wrote them, not how much education we happen to have.

[mooeypoo]

Well, let me just get my crystal ball, to see which parts are ambigous...

 

<<POST CUT TO SAVE ROOM>>

 

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

[Graviphoton]

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

 

Wierd math? Have you seen a resident mathematician claim a mistake in them?

 

And i am acting this way, because i will not entertain the sickiningly long post you made, on those again, mostly remedial claims. If you want to help me help you, stop trying to be over-rigorous. I ask that you take the time to go over with me the things that most bother you, instead of the massive wall you gave me to do.

[Klaynos]

Wierd math? Have you seen a resident mathematician claim a mistake in them?

 

And i am acting this way, because i will not entertain the sickiningly long post you made, on those again, mostly remedial claims. If you want to help me help you, stop trying to be over-rigorous. I ask that you take the time to go over with me the things that most bother you, instead of the massive wall you gave me to do.

 

You posted this what you'd probably call a ground breaking theory, expect alot of questions. Science is tested by fire... Got to be able to answer the questions put to you.

Edited June 10, 2008 by Klaynos

[Graviphoton]

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

 

 

I think your objective is to oust me from this forum. I know you don't like me, and you know you don't, so instead, you announce the big rip, and graviphoton is not acting by protocall!!!

 

Do what you want. You're a free human individual, i am sure. Report me, if you want. You call me acting like a child, and yet this is analogous to children in the pkayground shouting...

 

''I'm telling on you.''

 

Pathetic.

[mooeypoo]

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)

[Graviphoton]

You posted this what you'd probably call a ground breaking theory, expect alot of questions. Science is tested by fire... Got to be able to answer the questions put to you.

 

Fair enough, all i ask is that the questions being asked are most pivotal, not as remedial as i have seen so far, not to mention the quantity of them.

 

Mooey

 

Oh i give answers. Now who is being a troll. Ask a single question at a time, and i will answer. Never mind that, its a blatent lie to say i don;t reply to people. Totally blatent.

Edited June 10, 2008 by Graviphoton
multiple post merged

[Klaynos]

Fair enough, all i ask is that the questions being asked are most pivotal, not as remedial as i have seen so far, not to mention the quantity of them.

 

Mooey

 

Oh i give answers. Now who is being a troll. Ask a single question at a time, and i will answer. Never mind that, its a blatent lie to say i don;t reply to people. Totally blatent.

 

 

Do you actually want to take part in a debate as happens on these forums or not? Because it seems not.

[Graviphoton]

Yes, a debate. Not a conference.

[nstansbury]

stop trying to be over-rigorous.

 

Love it... I'm sure that's what the Pope would say too.

[iNow]

Oh i give answers. Now who is being a troll. Ask a single question at a time, and i will answer. Never mind that, its a blatent lie to say i don;t reply to people. Totally blatent.

 

You reply, but you don't give answers. There IS a difference.

[ydoaPs]

Graviphoton, we do have a debate forum here. If mooeypoo is up for it, you two should contact Cap'n Refsmmat about starting a debate.

[Graviphoton]

I Now

 

No, wrong way to see it. I see it that i answer people, if they give me the correct question. If they don't, how can i give a correct answer?

 

Your Dad

 

Hi. I might consider it. I wouldn't mind giving Mooey a few lessons on the theory so he can have a total understanding. Or is it not just Mooey? Is there others here who find my posts repulsively difficult to understand?

[ydoaPs]

Mooey is a girl, btw.

[Klaynos]

No, wrong way to see it. I see it that i answer people, if they give me the correct question. If they don't, how can i give a correct answer?

 

Ah yes, all the best people only answer what they deemed to be the correct question... Which is generally something they can answer without showing that they're wrong....

[Graviphoton]

Or right. As the case may be. Lets not be narrow and dogmatic here.

[mooeypoo]

I Now

 

No, wrong way to see it. I see it that i answer people, if they give me the correct question. If they don't, how can i give a correct answer?

 

Your Dad

 

Hi. I might consider it. I wouldn't mind giving Mooey a few lessons on the theory so he can have a total understanding. Or is it not just Mooey? Is there others here who find my posts repulsively difficult to understand?

 

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