Thread: My Ghost Story
View Single Post
Old 21st November 2015, 12:11 AM   #582
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Asked and answered. "The mathematics" contains nothing to support other dimensions as you use the term. And as you've admitted (in a different thread) you have little understanding of higher mathematics, I don't think you're in a position to say it does.
Then where did the theories come from, handwaving by select physicists?

Quote:
Then can we expect you to stop accusing your critics of shallow understanding and closed mindedness if they decide to disagree with your personal, unevidenced, lay opinion?
I've stated that this is speculation since the beginning of the discussion. For some reason you insist that I'm stating it as fact. You can disagree with me but you have no evidence to support your stance since nothing I've stated has been tested or can be tested at this time.

Quote:
You demanded we explain it, when you made zero effort to substantiate it. You used the expected inability to explain it for rhetorical advantage. You are being appropriately taken to task for that.
Where did this happen? I asked how it could have been correct in what it predicted. What you call taking to task is mediocrity masking as superiority.

Quote:
You've also said repeatedly that it's "based on science," and berated your critics repeatedly for not taking it a seriously as you wish them to. In fact you keep advocating its alleged scientific validity in this very post. As Garrette noted, you are bold when there is no opposition and timid when there is. This is known as the Motte and Bailey argument. It is unconvincing.
I've berated you because you have cherry picked what data you would like to accept, just as I have, for a topic that is not falsifiable. What bold/timid thing are you talking about? I'm just responding in like kind. Who is Motte and Bailey?

Quote:
Then you don't understand his research.
I understand perfectly. You need to understand how the brain works here first before you can understand what evidence to look for in how it might work as a receiver for thoughts, ideas, feelings that might come from some other you in another dimension.

Quote:
No. It does not support the notion of dimensions as you use the term.
What else does the word dimension describe if not space?

Quote:
It is certain you don't. See, well, all my previous posts.
I saw your previous posts but they don't have anything to do with what Tegmark stated in his paper regarding consciousness as a state of matter.

Quote:
Asked and answered. Your description changes willy-nilly to ensure it remains untestable according to the sciences to which you allude.
My idea is not testable regardless of what terminology I use to describe consciousness or interdimensional space.

Quote:
Then do you agree your critics' rejection of its alleged prophetic nature becomes more and more rational?
Because I am discussing it here, I am rereading material that I've previously read many years ago.Based on the many worlds theory prophecy is pointless. I think my critics reject my prophetic dream based on other reasons which vary in degree on rationality.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd

Last edited by Jodie; 21st November 2015 at 12:16 AM.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top