Haha! Ya Liz, I think your point is very well taken. 

On my part, I am finding it infinitely amusing that a guy who is so 
obviously self-deluded and unable to grok any of the most basic criticisms 
of his "theory" from the many textbook gedanken experiments so 
compassionately offered by people (experiments, by the way, that are easy 
to find in sophomore college level textbooks on physics available for free 
on the web) on this list nevertheless feels as though what he says is 
original and important enough to write a book on "Reality". What could this 
guy possibly know about reality when he can't even answer in good faith 
some of the most basic objections made against his "account"? 

Oi vey! At least Roger Clough's vacuous murmurings bow in the direction of 
greatness (Leibniz)... this guy pretends he's figured it all out for 
himself, and his (wrong, or at least apparently indefensible) theory stands 
alone and has no need to build upon or incorporate anything that came 
before. 

Talk about hubris... 

Nevertheless, following along is very entertaining for me!!

On Monday, January 13, 2014 4:46:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 10 January 2014 07:04, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net <javascript:>>wrote:
>
>> Terren,
>>
>> First, it will only detract, not help, to try to shoehorn my theories 
>> into standard categories. It's an entirely new theory.
>>
>
> This is fine if you are writing fiction, but in science you have to be 
> prepared for some parts of your theory to overlap others. The definitions 
> and categories you use, the logic and any maths that is applicable, are all 
> derived from existing theories. What you call shoehorning is an attempt to 
> find out what your theory actually is.
>
> Over and over, someone makes a comparison and is told that is what your 
> theory is NOT. This is starting to look like "Games People Play" - I'm 
> thinking of the one where someone says they want to do X, their friend 
> says, "Why don't you (do something that will help you achieve X) "  to 
> which the other person always says "Yes, but..." and comes up with some 
> objection. So they never achieve X. In this case, we say "Why don't you 
> give a formal definition that anyone can understand?" and you say "Don't 
> shoehorn me - I've explained that - see my post of... it's obvious... 
> anyone who disagrees with me is a moron..." Anything but actually achieving 
> X, in this case a theory with a formal definition that can be critiqued. 
> It's almost as though you only came here in the hope that everyone would 
> say "Yes, wow, wonderful theory! Shut down CERN, this guy's got it all 
> worked out..."
>
> A formal definition is needed, with defined terms, assumptions, 
> deductions, proofs. You haven't even given a proper definition of P-time 
> that actually makes sense yet.
>
> I await your hand waving tack spitting insistence that you have, or stony 
> silence 'cos I'm only a stupid gurl as the case may be.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to