Thread: My Ghost Story
View Single Post
Old 21st November 2015, 09:06 AM   #588
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
You and a select few others were having emotional tantrums...
No. Your critics are not hopelessly "emotional."

Quote:
You don't need to understand music theory...
Straw man. "Telling the conductor he's doing it wrong" is not the same as the "music hav[ing] no harmony." Quantum physics is counterintuitive and requires great study and expertise to understand. You have neither of those, neither in computer science, yet you feel justified in lecturing people on it who clearly know enough about it to know you're just waving your hands.

Quote:
In most books, theoretical physics for example, the physicist goes to great lengths to explain what the math for the theories indicate.
And you don't understand that either.

Quote:
Who is the gatekeeper?
The world.

Quote:
OK, I can see that.
Then you agree your proposal has been refuted.

Quote:
That makes sense.
Then you agree your proposal has been refuted.

Quote:
He is modeling consciousness as a state of matter. He's pretty clear about what his equations mean. I don;t think there is much room for misunderstanding.
Asked and answered. You don't understand his methods or the structure of his proof. You appear to have read what others have said about him and drawn your own conclusion.

Quote:
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It's not testable.
Rail split. What I said was "testable in the way you've proposed." Therefore your proposal fails.

Quote:
This sounds like you are agreeing with me.
I am not. You're proposing a discrete model for something that cannot be so modeled. Yes, you were asked to provide it, but as proof of your insinuation that it could be modeled.

Quote:
I don't disagree with this either, however, if you have interdimensional consciousness, yet you are only aware of here, then that is a partially independent and deterministic aspect of the whole.
Asked and answered. See Tegmark.

Quote:
I said this earlier in the thread. I used to visualize the dimensions as being like a layer cake. I don't anymore. If our first four dimensions are integrated to create what we are seeing here on Earth, then it follows that the other dimensions would also be integrated into our existence. If that is the case then our consciousness could exist in those other dimensions but we might not be aware of this.
Asked and answered. Your concept of dimensions (however visualized) is not what physics means by those words.

Quote:
I thought it was gravity
Asked and answered. We can quantify the effects gravity produces. We do not know why gravity happens. This is an excellent example of why layman should not pretend to be physicists.

Quote:
This is true and why I've stated that this is speculative from the start and not likely to be tested.
Asked and answered. You disclaim it as speculation when cornered, then berate your critics when they don't give it its due.

As for testability, there are two issues at stake. The first is the testability of your theory of other dimensions. We have already discussed that at length in the posts linked above. The second is your belief that artificial intelligence can be made to model the phenomena you conjecture.

Quote:
Then why did you insist that it could be done and ask me to try?
You insisted it could be done even after we told you AI doesn't help you. You were challenged to come up with an example. And as the world can see, you have failed.
JayUtah 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