> Also, I don't like to repeat to much arguments, so, if you want to argue
"You're too dumb to get it, and I won't waste time explaining it to you."
No. It is just for not boring people with arguments already send to the list. You misinterpret me.
> Btw I have not perceived your argument against AR. You just keep repeating > that something abstract can exist only if some piece of matter apply it.
Yeah, information doesn't exist without a material carrier. If you claim to do computation, please stick to constraints of computational physics.
You repeat your assertion again. Repeating the same sentence again and again will not make it an epsilon more true.