Ed Maartenn100 general theories of physics and philosophy.

Deleted, Rule 6

  • Deleted

    Votes: 1 100.0%

  • Deleted

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    1
Status
Not open for further replies.
turingtest said:
I don't think I'd bother with the "edit time" experiment; I don't know where the idea that Maartenn has edited for 12 hours comes from, but, AFAICT from scrolling back quickly through the last ten pages here, the longest actual interval in one of his posts from original post to final edit was just over fifty minutes (as I said, though, that's only in the last ten pages).

And, TBF to Maartenn, English is not his first language; I can imagine it would take a few edits to make a translation from Dutch fuzziness to English fuzziness at least somewhat comprehensible.
Click to expand...

I've never come across such long edit periods either. It's at least a testable claim ;)

The edits are no translation corrections. Often dramatic changes are made to posts, also after they have been replied to .... even though Maartenn100 has in the past claimed that he doesn't do that.
It makes no difference whether this is pointed out to him, he will continue to do this.
 
I suspect that Maartenn100 suffers from an obsessive compulsive need to post. He is impatient. Fantasizes something, post it (this is for him the most important part) and then edit it.

His post will never be meaningful, no matter how much he edits them.

E.T.A: Most irrationals have a strong need to post, to talk about their belief.
 
Last edited:
DuvalHMFIC said:
I think he probably holds the ISF record for post edits.
Click to expand...

Sadly, he's not even close. There is another, and his posts get edited and re-edited in very substantial ways, sometimes even to incorporate or counter (mis-interpreted) information provided by others in subsequent posts.

And then he admonishes folks to re-read his posts.
 
I think that I am not permitted to speculate on the Maartenn's motivation in his posting, and I clearly don't really know it or him. But whatever the motivation, and given the language difference, I do suggest that Maartenn slow down a bit, and very carefully polish his words before he posts them, so that his central points can be made without a need for later editing or confusion. Of course, that is unlikely to bring Maartenn's posts more in line with actual science. But it might help my ability to understand them.
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
I think that I am not permitted to speculate on the Maartenn's motivation in his posting, and I clearly don't really know it or him. But whatever the motivation, and given the language difference, I do suggest that Maartenn slow down a bit, and very carefully polish his words before he posts them, so that his central points can be made without a need for later editing or confusion. Of course, that is unlikely to bring Maartenn's posts more in line with actual science. But it might help my ability to understand them.
Click to expand...

I can wholeheartedly agree for the need for him to slow down.
Compose a post off line (if that works out better) re-read it, polish it so that it says what he wants it to say (at least).
It would be much better. It's a good idea.

But he won't do it.
 
Maartenn100 said:
Everywhere you look around you, you see the past.
Look around: everything you see is past.
Not existing now.
Click to expand...

"Not existing now"? you say? How could you know if you assert you can't detect them now?


Maartenn100 said:
You want to know how things are 'now': undetectable.
Click to expand...

Not true, not necessarily undetectable, perhaps just detectable later.

Maartenn100 said:
You need to conceptualize that. Your non-dimensional (mathematical) concepts
are more true, then what you detect or see. (or feel)
Click to expand...

Mathematical concepts often are specifically, well, dimensional. In fact dimensionality is a mathematical concept.


Maartenn100 said:
The further you look, the further you look in the past.
Click to expand...

True, but so what? A baseball player can still hit the ball coming towards them.


Maartenn100 said:
You are 'in the actual moment', undetectable.
Click to expand...

Not true, even neurons take some finite time to transfer information. So even "You" are in the past. Indeed experiments have shown that even what are thought to be conscious decisions are made before you become aware of them.


Maartenn100 said:
Detecting, is measuring something wich does not exist (anymore)
Click to expand...

No, what you detect still exists at that detection (otherwise you would not have detected it), but whatever it might have carried information about may or may not exist. However, you could find that out later.

Don't confuse what you detect with what it might have been carrying information about.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
neurons take some finite time to transfer information
Click to expand...

I want to make this distinction between 'an observer'. (you)
And the observer who is getting information.

Those are two different things.
To experience something, is different from the one who is experiencing it.
Informationprocesses are different from the observer who is getting the information.
Memory, observations, etc. are functions. But the one who is experiencing this information (the inner eye or the observer)
is different from the information itself.

But, that's maybe too philosophical. No proof for that.

The observer or 'the inner eye'= 0

(0 doesn't mean that it does not exist = it's real, even more real then the observed world)

The Man, I said this before:

The 3-dimensional picture of the object in front of you is actually 'an ordening of photons coming from different positions in time on a particular timescale in the past of an obsever)
You need to conceptulize how the object is, you cannot observe it.

When you touch the object on the back, and look at the front: you are actually 'experiencing' information from different positions in time in the past.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
I want to make this distinction between 'an observer'. (you)
And the observer who is getting information.

That are two different things.
To experience something, is different from the one who is experiencing it.
Informationprocesses are different from the observer who is getting the information.
Memory, observations, etc. are functions. But the one who is experiencing this information (the inner eye or the observer)
is different from the information itself.

But, that's maybe too philosophical. No proof for that.

The observer or 'the inner eye'= 0

(0 doesn't mean that it does not exist = it's real, even more real then the observed world)

The Man, I said this before:

The 3-dimensional picture of the object in front of you is actually 'an ordening of photons coming from different positions in time on a particular timescale of an obsever)
You need to conceptulize how the object is, you cannot observer it.
Click to expand...
Ehm .....
Daylightstar said:
What have a detector and an observer meaningfully in common?
Click to expand...
 
Daylightstar said:
What have a detector and an observer meaningfully in common?
Click to expand...

Detectors, scanners, telescopes, etc... are our more accurate senses.
 
Last edited:
Porpoise of life said:
Ah, so you're saying that your self is just an illusion created by the way the brain processes information?
Click to expand...

I say that the information is not the one who is observing/detecting the information.
These are two different things.
The information is measurable, the observer isn't.

But the observer is more real then information from the past.
Its position = 0
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
I say that the information is not the one who is observing/detecting the information.
These are two different things.
The information is measurable, the observer isn't.

But the observer is more real then information from the past.
Its position = 0
Click to expand...

Doesn't mesh with anything whatsoever.
 
So, try to make this distinction: (that's how I see it):

Don't think that you see with your eyes. You see with your inner eye. (non-material)

When you close your eyes, you can see a perfect triangle. (in your mind). You can conceptualise a perfect triangle.
The information 'triangle' is different from the one who is seeing the information.
The one who is watching is the immaterial observer.
The information 'trangle' is different from the inner eye.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
So, try to make this distinction: (that's how I see it):

Don't think that you see with your eyes. You see with your inner eye. (non-material existent)

When you close your eyes, you can see a perfect triangle. (in your mind)
The information 'triangle' is different from the one who is seeing the information.
The one who is watching is the immaterial observer.
The information 'trangle' is different from the inner eye.
Click to expand...
Strikethrough + correction by Daylightstar
Sorry, doesn't mesh with anything.

Oh by the way, I took the liberty to correct a mistake I caught in your post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom