The pro-science anti-RM ralliers here are like the new Inquisition. Their “every valid theory must rely on the logic that I have trained myself in” is equal to “every valid theory must correspond to the Bible”.
Abstract was the only one here who asked the tuly difficult questions about RM. Unfortunately these questions remained unanswered in favor of debating trolls like HHW, who is only here because he’s apparently obsessed with James.
Following Abstracts lead, I would argue that PtA consists of relativity itself - of the single property of being local and (thus) differentiated from homogeneity.
Physbang and Twiffy - you may be experts in math, but that can just be autism. In order to apply math soundly to the real world, you need to be able to reason.
Then it is YOU that has not been reading properly.
Maybe had you not butted into a discussion i was having with another person, you’d not now be acting so trollishly?
I think there might be a cognitive problem suggesting that one sort of metaphysical abstraction “consists” of another.
Both (PtA and relativity) are unfortunate, but perhaps the only, ways of delimiting a description of a whole: the fabric of reality - I think this will always be a problem in human cognition.
It seems we chase our tails in wanting to provide a unified theory nad always have to fall back on describing it in bite size pieces.
Sigh.
You wrote idiotic things like, “Einstein used his imagination. He looked at a sunbeam and asked what it would be like to travel on the wave,” like that weak shit is supposed to impress us. Then you throw around the names of a philosopher like you are supposed to know who he is. I doubt that you do, since you don’t know enough about epistemology to know the common philosophical use of the term “belief”.
I have no idea why you want to defend crackpots, but since that’s the role you’ve taken up, you should get all the respect you deserve.
Half-granted. But I am trying to answer Abstracts question, and it’s difficult without resorting to semantics that are linguistically problematic. And I do think that the two concepts are the same “thing” but in a different semantic context. Let’s try to break through the context-barriers.
I was sneakily setting up another referral to value ontology, which brings all of these abstractions together in coherent terms. Because it does not rely on the assumption that there is a basic substance, instead postulates a basic logical limit by which we are forced to understand whatever substance we can observe and conceive of.
That weak shit was words from his own mouth. Get over it
When someone describes what Darwin does makes him a crackpot, I’ll defend Darwin every time.
A potential is a situation. PtA = Potential to Affect = Situation that leads to affect. In RM “PtA” is a measure of the logistical situation in units of “potential”, Pa.
You can deny the existence of any particular situation, but you can’t deny the existence of one. And every situation is a Potential-to-Affect.
…and they aren’t “experts at math” (by a long shot), but yes, void of reasoning (what philosophy is all about) as has become so very common (with purpose).
RM:AO then as the logistics of manifest relativity within the physical universe.
VO as the formulation of the relativity principle in exact but non-mathematical terms - the logical exhaustion of ‘being relative to’.
VO is thus not limited to the physical universe, it also accounts for sub-physical relations, such as electron-spin.
How does RM describe quantum entanglement?
Yeah and ad hominems really make your case stronger. No one here understands the majesty of James and RM. And when he doesn’t answer perfectly valid posts it’s only because of trolls. Pull the other one its got bells on, you’re making the same apologetics James does. Dozens of posters over the years have answered perfectly fair questions and then had their contentions ignored dozens of times.
If you think people are trolling report them, trolls get banned. Simple. Stop making excuses for James, whether people are or have trolled or not is no of no consequence here, and I for one mean everything I say, and hence am not trolling, and so it seems does everyone else. You need to a) stop using the troll excuse, when James is equally then culpable, and you need to stop using the RM is logical excuse, when James is guilty of making endless excuses to dodge perfectly good questions. If not then you will be guilty of the same sins as James. Obfuscate all you like, but if and when he actually tackles people instead of just ignoring them continuously, then and then will any body care what he says or think it actually is as you say: logical. The onus is on James, James because he is the one making all the big claims. If he refuses to have the onus on him, by making excuses then no one cares.
What I mean by under your definition of trolling James is trolling too, because they are not 99% of the time and James isn’t trolling either, but sometimes he strays from the line, and starts deliberately setting up inflammatory posts to provoke others, not just me, then when they are provoked by them he retreats behind the excuse of ad hominem or troll to avoid having to tackle perfectly valid points. the fact remains though no matter how heated a debate gets little or none of what goes on is trolling, it’s straw man. In the same but opposite way attacking someone for not justifying their argument, or for not having enough education to justify one is not an ad hominem, it is perfectly justified to say a person who never even passed a degree in physics, is unable to answer the biggest questions at the cutting edge of modern day physics. James is not attacked because he is wrong, he is attacked because he is not even wrong and shows little regard for ever being in a scientific place. His posting history shows clearly that he is not interested in discussing controversy, not interested in arguing with people who know much more about the subject than him, nor is he interested in studying enough to correctly justify his arguments, nor is he interested in evidence or proofs using maths or any other of the things we traditionally associate with science or even philosophy of science over unfounded assertion. Until he does no one should care, and no one will. If it is a conspiracy of his peers, it’s a perfectly justifiable one, although who his peers actually are is moot for the same reasons.
THis is all blancmange and no duck.
a) that isn’t a rebuttal it’s just air, which makes it worthless.
b) you’ve only been here 5 minutes you are unaware of James’s posting habits or history so I don’t see any basis to judge.
c) do you have any qualifications in physics with which to make any judgement about James serial endless waffling with not the slightest proof or differentiation in it, let alone evidence?
d) amongst his triumphs are denying relativity works in the real world, denying quantum mechanics is a viable scientific concern, claiming people are looking for things they aren’t, claiming scientists are brainwashed by presumably evidence and objectivity, something James doesn’t have, claiming scientists are part of a cult, claiming that there is an active scientific attempt to keep ideas like his down. Let’s face it James is a luddite who denies everything about science its method and wants us all to return to a golden era where any old idea passes master on the basis of his say so. James in short is straight out of the past. If he had his way he’d dismantle all science and practice and return us to the dark ages. If you want to condone that sort of sloppy subjective garbage go ahead, but you’re wasting your time as is anyone else who buys into his religion.
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Out of the 37 points on this table, James gets a big tick on 27. That’s quite a high score even for crackpots.
This one doesn’t help either.
You have to love the troller who knows so little that he accuses the fish of being trolls. 
A) That list about crackpots constitutes a theory… by a crackpot… an untestable theory at that (proving himself as the crackpot that he defines).
B) I have made a variety of testable predictions, but you wouldn’t know anything about those because you are not here to discuss nor learn, but to harass one individual (which says something very serious about you).
C) One of the predictions of RM:AO, the most important of all, is one that you can test yourself without extraordinary equipment. Most others require some form of equipment but in many cases merely a PC and some programming skill would do. But of course, you aren’t even up to that level. You are too busy harassing to learn how to discover any truth about anything.
D) Most theories that you hear about concern expensive equipment and are done far away and the only thing you hear about them comes from a source interested in popularizing specific theories. That makes the only source you have for such theories void of integrity.
E) I am here personally to answer actual questions for those very few who might be interested. Obviously you are not one of those. Such would involve you actually thinking, not mouthing.
Well you have to love the person who throws out ad hominems in lieu of argument, and then ignores them based on ad hominems that don’t exist too. JAmes you’re a massive excuse factory. This isn’t about trolling as I already said, we are all sincere in saying you are an ill educated person who does not have the ability to be on the cutting edge of science because you haven’t done the ground work. If this constitutes even an ad hom let alone trolling which it doesn’t, then it is meaningless, but it doesn’t does it? We all are sincere in what we say, we all know that you are what you are. And we in no way are doing it deliberately to troll you. Honesty and integrity in our arguments are the opposite of what trolling is. You can’t mean your argument wholeheartedly and without reservation and be a troll. You need to learn what trolling is for a start.
That list was written by a scientist who was tired of hearing about how all science is wrong by people who weren’t prepared to justify it. That list is a bench mark on how you tell the difference between someone who will walk the walk and someone who wont.
You haven’t provided anyone with the means to test them. And a PC program is not a means to scientifically verify anything unless it relies on laboratory work in the first place. Science happens in a laboratory using scientific method to rule out things by actually testing those things, you wrote a program. Who cares, I could write a program that uses my own self reinforcing ideas, but unless it started from evidence in the real world, that could be criticised and or tested in labs with a set up that would reproduce your results, it would be completely worthless.
You mean peer review, repiition of experiment, and reputable publication in journals. Yes they are terrible means to make things objective. Let’s just say whatever we like and have that true even if no one else agrees with you, can reproduce your experiment or can even understand you? WE use objectivity to rule out people who make large claims. What would you suggest we use instead, anecdote, word of mouth, your opinion?
No you are here to ignore people and avoid questions as you have proven many times, by avoiding dozens of peoples well made argument, you probably have the most extensive ignore list on this forum. And I don’t mean a computer program one, this one is you, you’re ability to completely ignore decent posts and carry on regardless.
@Hobbes: Well fair enough you’re an English Teacher I think might be wrong but let’s run with the analogy: how would you feel if say Shakespeare was demeaned by people using conjecture and nothing else to slander their writing. Now take the whole of modern physics not just one author, just everything in physics now aside from old classical physics; how would you feel if someone was basically saying it was all crap? Would you not feel a little aggrieved? Would you not want to argue that somebody who hadn’t even studied the field properly was in no position to be on the cutting edge of it?
I’d probably say he was an idiot. I’d tell him so, then move on.
We are talking about James SS aren’t we?
Word to the wise: he’s not really reading what you write.
I just did a quick review of his contributions to the topic since Februrary. With the exception of one post in which he demonstrated a misunderstanding of PtA on the 23rd July, his posts have been ad homs.