> On 30 Sep 2019, at 18:11, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 11:11 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > Now, if you know a members of the national Academy of Sciences who would > > have found an error in my thesis, different from the minor (and less minor) > > that I found myself since, just invite him to publish a paper, or to let it > > known. Without you doing this, you are just invoking an arguent of > > authority, > > Why is my statement that you haven't convinced even one of the 2,382 members > of the National Academy of Sciences an argument from authority but your > statement that I haven't convinced anyone on this list is not an argument > from authority??
Because we can’t check it, and here we discuss in a forum. When someone repeat ad nauseam an argument debunked by many in a forum, we call that a troll. > > > I have not met a scientist who studied my work who has not understood it. > > Your problem isn't that scientists don't understand your work, your problem > is they understand exactly precisely what it is, they understand it far more > clearly than you do. Some does indeed, among the “opponent”. I have been reported that they understand that it makes atheism into a pseudo-religion. But they are rare, and were opposed to the use of words like “consciousness”, “mind”, well before being against “theology”. Now, they understood the sixth first step, but not much more. The other “real” scientists, which are those who have listen to me, and read the papers, have no problem to understand the whole thing, even if some of them add that they are not so interested. My problem with a tiny part of the academy comes from materialist (even marxiste) philosopher, and they have only criticise me for not citing Kant (which was false, so they have not really read the work) or mentioning Hegel, or Marx. And they hate the idea that “matter” would be non primary. But science is not wishful thinking, simply. > > > my academical opponents in Brussels have stop the thesis at the > > recevability level, so that I have never meet them. They have stopped the > > thesis despite their own expert in each disciplinary fields that I use > > (mainly mathematical logic and quantum physics) have not found any error. > > Yeah right, just like you claim I haven't found numerous ridiculously obvious > errors in your "proof”! The only one you have try to explain us was not an error. You just reformulated a question with your own term, and added ambiguities, to conclude it is ambiguous. Sorry, but that has convinced nobody. > Every crackpot for the last 400 years has visions of being the next Galileo > whose work of genius is being unfairly stifled by scientific orthodoxy. I > don't buy it, for every Galileo there are about 10 million crackpots. You are not reasoning. > > > you can imagine the time it will be needed to make people accept that the > > separation of theology from [...] > > And that is my cue to say goodnight because nothing intelligent ever follows > that word. Idem, Bruno > > John K Clark > > -- > 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 [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0eq13N6JW6m0McGpyh3E7Ty8_y6muNr2dJ25HWOc5Y1Q%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0eq13N6JW6m0McGpyh3E7Ty8_y6muNr2dJ25HWOc5Y1Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0CC3AE1C-C2BC-4CD6-9A44-B12E4EB6CAD0%40ulb.ac.be.
