SimonFunnell Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) I have repeatedly attempted to engage in sincere and civil discourse with people on this forum only to be met with vile, vulgar attitudes from cocky, arrogant brainiacs that think they know it all. Now I respect peoples intelligence, I do, but the lack of wisdom is shocking. I have stated I have realised Einstein's dream of a theory of everything, namely the universe is a kind of cellular automata. Now I assume you are arrogantly wanting me to 'prove' it to you with the divine language of nature, the mathematics you worship, would I be right? Edited July 28, 2016 by SimonFunnell -5
Strange Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 Now I assume you are arrogantly wanting me to 'prove' it to you with the divine language of nature, the mathematics you worship, would I be right? Almost. Science doesn't really prove things. However, it does test theories against observation and experiment. So, if you have a "theory of everything" you should be able to make some testable predictions (quantified predictions, using mathematics) and then show how well they match reality. 2
pzkpfw Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 Actually, you lied, saying: Well I have been told that he did in fact have a theory of everything, that is a complete and logically coherent mathematical description of all the forces in the universe uniting the macrocosm with the microcosm under a very simple philosophical framework. Would you like to hear more about this story? ... then bringing in your own hypothesis. Then you started a new thread to continue the previous thread, which a moderator had closed. You don't seem very sincere to me. 2
SimonFunnell Posted July 28, 2016 Author Posted July 28, 2016 Almost. Science doesn't really prove things. However, it does test theories against observation and experiment. So, if you have a "theory of everything" you should be able to make some testable predictions (quantified predictions, using mathematics) and then show how well they match reality. Well with the utmost respect, that is just simply your own personal philosophy. Actually it is not your own personal philosophy, it was a philosophy that was sold to you by some authority figure and that you brought into.
Mordred Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 To add to this. Physics is useless unless it can make mathematical predictions. 1
andrewcellini Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) I have repeatedly attempted to engage in sincere and civil discourse with people on this forum only to be met with vile, vulgar attitudes from cocky, arrogant brainiacs that think they know it all. When you frame it like that it seems we've treated you horribly. Too bad things are not as you've described. I have stated I have realised Einstein's dream of a theory of everything, namely the universe is a kind of cellular automata. Now I assume you are arrogantly wanting me to 'prove' it to you with the divine language of nature, the mathematics you worship, would I be right? "Nice" jab, though I hope you realize your "theory" will probably make no testable predictions without a model, and for you to declare that the universe is a "kind of cellular automata" implies a mathematical or computational model. Well with the utmost respect, that is just simply your own personal philosophy. Actually it is not your own personal philosophy, it was a philosophy that was sold to you by some authority figure and that you bought into. FIFY Also this most undoubtedly unfounded. How would you know how he came to his personal philosophy? Were you there every step of the way? Did you read the unofficial biography of Strange? Edited July 28, 2016 by andrewcellini
SimonFunnell Posted July 28, 2016 Author Posted July 28, 2016 When you frame it like that it seems we've treated you horribly. Too bad things are not as you've described. I have been called a crack pot straight up: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/96825-the-real-genius-of-einstien/?p=934265 I have also been attacked as a creationist, when I am not.
andrewcellini Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) I have been called a crack pot straight up: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/96825-the-real-genius-of-einstien/?p=934265 I have also been attacked as a creationist, when I am not. When you make confident pronouncements about your knowledge such that you have a "theory of everything" without substantiating it with evidence or argument, you are being a crack pot. You should be encouraged by the criticism to better your arguments and to actually learn what mainstream science has discovered. Edited July 28, 2016 by andrewcellini 1
SimonFunnell Posted July 28, 2016 Author Posted July 28, 2016 When you make confident pronouncements about your knowledge such that you have a theory of everything without substantiating it with evidence or argument, you are being a crack pot. Well would you like me to substantiate it with evidence and argument thus proving without a shadow of a doubt that I have indeed realised Einstein's dream?
andrewcellini Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) Well would you like me to substantiate it with evidence and argument thus proving without a shadow of a doubt that I have indeed realised Einstein's dream? Certainly, but you need a model and as I stated above for you to claim that the universe is a "kind of cellular automata" implies that the model to describe it will be mathematical. Edited July 28, 2016 by andrewcellini
andrewcellini Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) Why do keep saying I need a model? Do you not know what a cellular automata is? To answer your question briefly, it's to make quantitative predictions. Edited July 28, 2016 by andrewcellini
SimonFunnell Posted July 28, 2016 Author Posted July 28, 2016 No, I do not know what a cellular automata is. I am just saying random things that pop into my head for no apparent reason. -1
andrewcellini Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) No, I do not know what a cellular automata is. I am just saying random things that pop into my head for no apparent reason. Please read the rest of my reply above. Just to be safe: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CellularAutomaton.html this is more detailed: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cellular_Automata/Mathematical_Model Edited July 28, 2016 by andrewcellini
SimonFunnell Posted July 28, 2016 Author Posted July 28, 2016 Do you not know what a cellular automata is? To answer your question briefly, it's to make quantitative predictions. Are you suggesting I do not have a model?
andrewcellini Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 Are you suggesting I do not have a model? You have not presented it. As far as I know you do not, just a loose collection of ideas.
SimonFunnell Posted July 28, 2016 Author Posted July 28, 2016 You have not presented it. As far as I know you do not, just a loose collection of ideas. Well if I am claiming to have realised Einstiens dream would that not imply, by implication, that I have a model?
andrewcellini Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 Well if I am claiming to have realised Einstiens dream would that not imply, by implication, that I have a model? No, why would it? Your claim is presented without evidence and thus can be dismissed without evidence. I could claim the same but you'd have no reason to believe me. If you had a model that you were this confident in why wouldn't you present it?
SimonFunnell Posted July 28, 2016 Author Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) If you had a model that you were this confident in why wouldn't you present it? Well like Pythagoras or Einstein, Jesus Christ or the Prophet Mohammed, I only share the deepest darkest secrets of the universe with those who are worthy of such knowledge. So tell me, why are you worthy of such knowledge? I mean, if you think about it you are asking me to put the entire power of the universe in your hands. So tell me, what would you do with the power of this knowledge? Edited July 28, 2016 by SimonFunnell -4
andrewcellini Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) Well like Pythagoras or Einstein, Jesus Christ or the Prophet Mohammed, I only share the deepest darkest secrets of the universe with those who are worthy of such knowledge. So tell me, why are you worthy of such knowledge? I mean, if you think about it you are asking me to put the entire power of the universe in your hands. So tell me, what would you do with the power of this knowledge? All four have books, papers etc written either by them or by their followers (in the case of pythagoras and the latter 2) about their ideas. Einstein won a nobel prize for his published work on the photoelectric effect. He didn't keep it a deep, dark secret. I don't know what you're going on about. Edited July 28, 2016 by andrewcellini 2
SimonFunnell Posted July 28, 2016 Author Posted July 28, 2016 All four have books, papers etc written either by them or by their followers (in the case of pythagoras and the latter 2) about their ideas. Einstein won a nobel prize for his published work on the photoelectric effect. He didn't keep it a deep, dark secret. I don't know what you're going on about. You see, you are not engaging with me at all, you are just talking at me, the idea of conversation is to engage with one another in a respectful and dignified way. Would you care to answer my question as to why you are worthy of such knowledge and power? -2
andrewcellini Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) You see, you are not engaging with me at all, you are just talking at me, the idea of conversation is to engage with one another in a respectful and dignified way. Because you're making claims without evidence, and you're making justifiably wrong claims about supposed secrets of thinkers and religious leaders (which was a non sequitur by the way). You're avoiding admitting you have no model because, as you've presented, you have a loose collection of ideas. Also I would argue that I am engaging in conversation with you, but that is off topic. Would you care to answer my question as to why you are worthy of such knowledge and power? Why is worthiness relevant? This is an obvious diversion tactic to avoid presenting the model you don't have. You've been asked since the beginning of the thread for a model and you seem to always have an excuse. This one is novel for you, though not uncommon among crackpots. Gosh Poe's Law is killing me right now. Edited July 28, 2016 by andrewcellini
SimonFunnell Posted July 28, 2016 Author Posted July 28, 2016 Why is worthiness relevant? This is an obvious diversion tactic to avoid presenting the model you don't have. You've been asked since the beginning of the thread for a model and you seem to always have an excuse. This one is novel for you, though not uncommon among crackpots. Gosh Poe's Law is killing me right now. Well I see you are continuing with your offensive so let me put it this way, I intend to supply the entire human race with free electricity ending our dependency on primitive fossil fuels.
andrewcellini Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 Well I see you are continuing with your offensive so let me put it this way, I intend to supply the entire human race with free electricity ending our dependency on primitive fossil fuels. I'm sorry if you're taking the criticism personally. I'm not sure how that latter portion of your response clears up how worthiness is relevant or what your model is. The way that you have presented the case for your theory of everything thus far has been ineffective at communicating its efficacy or even what you're really talking about.
SimonFunnell Posted July 28, 2016 Author Posted July 28, 2016 Can I ask, what is motivating you to talk with me? Why are you bothering? Is there a point, a purpose behind it all?
Recommended Posts