Universe can't be infinite.

[TimeSeeker]

If you have contradictory contexts, your worldview is trash.

Agreed 100%!

So go ahead and resolve the contradictions between GR and QM then!

Again, you don't even understand what contexts are.
And now you are talking about contradictions after all.
You are a f****** idiot.

If you claim to have a non-contradictory world-view you are necessarily claiming to have solved the dualism in Physics! You have a ToE!

Show it to us!

Idiot

Contexts (CATEGORIZATION!!!!!) are the root-cause of contradictions!

The universe has no contexts.

It's also so complex that it's intractable for our monkey brains.

Categories are pragmatic necessities. And contradictions are inescapable from the human condition.

[Atla]

If you have contradictory contexts, your worldview is trash.

Agreed 100%!

So go ahead and resolve the contradictions between GR and QM then!

Again, you don't even understand what contexts are.
And now you are talking about contradictions after all.
You are a f****** idiot.

If you claim to have a non-contradictory world-view you are necessarily claiming to have solved the dualism in Physics! You have a ToE!

Show it to us!

Idiot

Contexts (CATEGORIZATION!!!!!) are the root-cause of contradictions!

The universe has no contexts.

It's also so complex that it's intractable for our monkey brains.

Categories are pragmatic necessities. And contradictions are inescapable from the human condition.

I already mentioned like 2 months ago what my best guess is at resolving the apparent contradictions.
You might want to learn to read?

[TimeSeeker]

I already mentioned like 2 months ago what my best guess is at resolving the apparent contradictions.
You might want to learn to read?

Key word GUESS.

You have resolved the dualism in your world-view through an UNTESTABLE and UNFALSIFIABLE thumb-suck.

You invented a God

You are a 21st century theist.

[Atla]

I already mentioned like 2 months ago what my best guess is at resolving the apparent contradictions.
You might want to learn to read?

Key word GUESS.

You have resolved the dualism in your world-view through an UNTESTABLE and UNFALSIFIABLE thumb-suck.

You invented a God

You are a 21st century theist.

The two theories describe the same reality so there never really was a duality in the first place.

And you really have absolutely no idea how the other 7 billion people use the word "God".

[TimeSeeker]

The two theories describe the same reality so there never really was a duality in the first place.

And you really have absolutely no idea how the other 7 billion people use the word "God".

Like the theory of flat Earth is describing the exact same Earth, so there's no duality there either.
Like the Ptolemaic models make exactly the same predictions as Copernican/Newtonian models, so there's no duality there either.

Stop before you dig a deeper hole.

[Atla]

The two theories describe the same reality so there never really was a duality in the first place.

And you really have absolutely no idea how the other 7 billion people use the word "God".

Like the theory of flat Earth is describing the exact same Earth, so there's no dualism there either.

Stop before you dig a deeper hole.

You don't get it do you.
You've been thoroughly refuted about everything so I'm not in the hole.
After our first "conversation" about falsification being a physical law, it became obvious that you are profoundly retarded.
I'm just exploring your disabilites through our "conversations" because I haven't seen this before.
Okay maybe I have, the Aspie-narcissist is a rare convergence but it tends to happen.

[TimeSeeker]

You don't get it do you.
You've been thoroughly refuted about everything so I'm not in the hole.

Naturally. That's what ever philosopher who loses an argument says.

And then there is Planck's principle on the matter

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it

After our first "conversation" about falsification being a physical law, it became obvious that you are profoundly retarded.

Of course. Or profoundly right. I guess we'll only find out in a few centuries who was really wrong, eh ?

As Planck's principle does its thing

I'm just exploring your disabilites through our "conversations" because I haven't seen this before.
Okay maybe I have, the Aspie-narcissist is a rare convergence but it tends to happen.

I mean, if I was an Aspie you might have an argument. But I am not

The narcissism is par for the scientific course.

[Atla]

You don't get it do you.
You've been thoroughly refuted about everything so I'm not in the hole.

Naturally. That's what ever philosopher who loses an argument says.

And then there is Planck's principle on the matter

After our first "conversation" about falsification being a physical law, it became obvious that you are profoundly retarded.

Of course. Or profoundly right. I guess we'll only find out in a few centuries who was really wrong, eh ?

As Planck's principle does its thing

I'm just exploring your disabilites through our "conversations" because I haven't seen this before.
Okay maybe I have, the Aspie-narcissist is a rare convergence but it tends to happen.

I mean, if I was an Aspie you might have an argument. But I am not

The narcissism is par for the scientific course.

You would have to first initiate an argument that makes sense, so I can lose it. I've waited so long for that but not a single one.

[TimeSeeker]

You would have to first initiate an argument that makes sense, so I can lose it. I've waited so long for that but not a single one.

That's not how reality decides on losers and winners

I prefer to play by reality's rules than by the ones you've made up.

For you could "win" all the arguments and still be an idiot. Which is what I am here to demonstrate

[Atla]

You would have to first initiate an argument that makes sense, so I can lose it. I've waited so long for that but not a single one.

That's not how reality decides on losers and winners

I prefer to play by reality's rules than by the ones you've made up.

For you could "win" all the arguments and still be an idiot. Which is what I am here to demonstrate

Just saying, reality doesn't decide on losers and winners, and doesn't disclose rules for reasoning.
That's what people who make shit up, believe.

[TimeSeeker]

Just saying, reality doesn't decide on losers and winners, and doesn't disclose rules for reasoning.

Natural selection is a mechanism for deciding losers and winners.

There are no "rules" - there are effective and ineffective strategies.

That's what people who make shit up, believe.

Yeah. On the one side you claim to care about evidence, on the other side you completely reject the statistical significance of strategies validated by the Lindy effect

Nobody says you must think like a mathematician/scientist/physicist, but recursion is an OOOOOOOOOOLD idea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

[Atla]

Just saying, reality doesn't decide on losers and winners, and doesn't disclose rules for reasoning.

Natural selection is a mechanism for deciding losers and winners.

There are no "rules" - there are effective and ineffective strategies.

That's what people who make shit up, believe.

Yeah. On the one side you claim to care about evidence, on the other side you completely reject the statistical significance of strategies validated by the Lindy effect

Nobody says you must think like a mathematician/scientist/physicist, but recursion is an OOOOOOOOOOLD idea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Shows again how much of an idiot you are. Most of the philosophical topics discussed, at least the ones I'm commenting on, have nothing or almost nothing to do with natural selection.

[TimeSeeker]

Shows again how much of an idiot you are. Most of the philosophical topics discussed, at least the ones I'm commenting on, have nothing or almost nothing to do with natural selection.

So you have contrived an artificial context in which natural selection is not a thing? A context in which errors in reasoning and action result in no negative consequences?

Which made up Universe is that?

Ohhh, yes! The context of philosophy

[Atla]

Shows again how much of an idiot you are. Most of the philosophical topics discussed, at least the ones I'm commenting on, have nothing or almost nothing to do with natural selection.

So you have contrived an artificial context in which natural selection is not a thing, and that errors in reasoning result in no negative consequences?

Which made up Universe is that?

Ohhh, yes! The context of philosophy

The universe where at least 99% of humans understand that not every topic is about natural selection.

[TimeSeeker]

The universe where at least 99% of humans understand that not every topic is about natural selection.

Such universe does not exist. So those 99% of humans are delusional

Individual AND collective decisions/actions have consequences. If not short-term, then long-term.
Stupid decisions/actions have negative consequences.

If dualism is what (ultimately) causes our extinction then dualism is about natural selection!

And dualism sure gets in the way of scientific understanding....

Q.E.D GR vs QM