You've yet to show me how I'm wrong.
You have yet to show how you're right. Your arguments boil down to nothing more substantial than "Because I say so," and the foundational knowledge that would make that even a rational statement (much less an argument) is missing in your argument. Moreover, you don't dispute its absence. If we all agree that you don't know what you're talking about, then I just have to laugh at the prospect that you think someone else is on the hook to make you seem even wronger.
Or on the hook to accept that right and wrong even have any meaning left in what you're increasingly disclaiming as mere "opinion." If you're simply throwing out ideas based on what you agree is a limited understanding of the facts, then why does it matter that people think you're wrong? Specifically why does it get your goat so acutely that people who
do understand a science better than you tell you that it doesn't work the way you suppose?
Looking back, it seems I showed you in great detail, for example, how your claims regarding artificial intelligence were completely misguided. How you envisioned the field to work actually bore no resemblance to what is actually done in it. I explained how you equivocated "dimension" between your supernatural beliefs and the mechanics of quantum field theory. We had to curtail that explanation when it became apparent you lacked the foundational understanding to even begin an informed discussion. Then I pointed out how you had confused "gravity waves" with "gravitational waves." They are entirely different concepts so far removed from each other that they operate at vastly different scales of physical behavior. In fact, if you had been paying attention to those rather detailed rebuttals in the early part of this thread, you would have seen evidence that your presumption of the scope of quantum interference was also in error. Far from any dereliction, I have addressed your various physics and scientific claims at length. In fact the record shows you tend not to address those detailed rebuttals even when repeatedly directed to them.
I've never claimed to be a physics guru, that would be your claim.
No, everyone here seems to agree you are trying to argue from a position of knowledge on that and various other subjects. And at times in your argument in this thread you attempt to correct your critics or suggest that they do not understand your claims, something that would be possible only from a presumption of expertise. Your newfound modesty appeared only when it seemed likely you would be asked to provide details about your physics references. But your pattern is well established. I expect you to return to the pretense of expertise as soon as the heat is off.
You refuted it but that wasn't proof or even evidence.
You seem to be claiming that only a substantial affirmative rebuttal can "really" refute your claims. That is simply not the case. If, as in the example of equivocated "dimensions," your error is a simple one, it needs no lengthy correction. And when, as happened in that case, you can't possibly understand the relevant proof, then your demands for it fall flat.
So explain what they are if you are so concerned with how I'm presenting the concepts as I understand them.
Pointing out your ignorance does not obligate me to educate you personally. There are many fine colleges and universities available, and nothing prevents you from taking and passing an accredited program of study in linear algebra up to eigenvectors and eigenvalues, as is the typical requirement for beginning a study of quantum electrodynamics.
You profess an interest in advanced theoretical physics. I'm boggled at why that didn't translate to first learning the mathematics upon which it is based, and the other foundational sciences. Did you not want to have an accurate understanding? Or were you only interested in a shortcut, a stable of pseudo-scientific catch phrases you could use to intimidate people into thinking you had a rational and scientific basis for your beliefs?
See, in the real world we can't make strong arguments that have to include the "as I understand them" qualification. You either understand it or you don't, and if you don't then you have no right to demand others take seriously what you say is possible or allowed by it. If you're simply asking us to indulge your limited understanding, then no. Just no.
My "concern" over your understanding and representations extends no farther than evaluating your claims. You seem to want your inept stab at science fiction to be taken as putative fact. I have given you the reasons why it should not be. There is no additional responsibility to educate you. The purpose of evaluating your claim is served adequately by noting wherein it errs, and attains nothing further by correcting your deficiency.
Yes, after you have studied linear algebra and first-year quantum mechanics I can explain Gerlich's research to you in meaningful and accurate terms. None of that prospective discussion changes the basic fact that the argument for biocentrism has nothing to do with Gerlich's referenced work. You say they are connected. But you cannot explain how. You likely said so only because Lanza said so, and now that you have made your best play with his
ipse dixit you have little left but to insist your critics prove a negative (the non-connection), and deploy a last-ditch equivocation on "natural science" as some sort of magical overriding principle that in some way satisfies any claim to relevance.
I owe you absolutely nothing.
And if that's your attitude toward learning the sciences you profess support your beliefs, then your critics owe you nothing. If you want your critics to take you seriously, you owe them a demonstration of the foundational knowledge that applies to those sciences, acquired through your own diligent effort and demonstrable upon request. Belatedly trying to disclaim them as "opinion" or "as I understand them" doesn't excuse your attempt to shortcut the process. Demanding your critics type out lengthy posts to remedially educate you in facts you couldn't bother to learn before shooting off your mouth is just arrogant.
I've stated opinions only, I make no claims to my expertise, but you, on the other hand have made those claims and yet.............nothing.
You keep saying that, yet look at how much of the prior portions of this thread you have to ignore in order to say it.
You can continue to post "You're Wrong" in the biggest font available but it still means nothing unless you demonstrate for the audience how that person is wrong.
Asked and answered. Your arguments are
non sequitur lines of reasoning based on your misunderstanding of the relevant sciences. You disclaim any expertise in the sciences, won't go into further detail, and seek to characterize your reasoning as mere "opinion." I don't see that any additional rebuttal is necessary. Your claim fails for a plethora of reasons that don't require lengthy productions from your critics.
Despite your understandable avoidance of comparisons between what you're doing here and the hypothetical prospect of people malpracticing your profession, I'll try an analogy. Let's say someone with an interest, but no qualifications or demonstrable expertise, in the relevant fields tells you that a mother eating chocolate while pregnant will cause the baby to be born with a dark soul. Let's say he tries to formulate "soul" scientifically and points to a bunch of impressive-looking (though largely unintelligible to a layman) material in the biochemistry, dietetics, and obstetrics that he says proves his claim, but can't explain in detail how.
As in your case, the obvious error is the fallacy of
non sequitur; an alleged connection isn't made valid simply by proffering it. When challenged, your interlocutor might demand an affirmative rebuttal -- as you're attempting to do here -- but in this case one is neither necessary nor possible. It is not necessary because a
non sequitur rebuttal is simply notice that the original claim fails a necessary test to be an argument. The argument is not cognizable as stated, and the only remedy is the burden of the proponent to fill in the missing pieces. It is certainly not upon the critic to somehow prove the non-connection. Non-connection is the null hypothesis.
An affirmative rebuttal in this analogy is not possible for two reasons. First, it would require laying enough foundational knowledge that the claimant could know (not merely ignorantly disbelieve) his proffered evidence is irrelevant to the claim. Second, it would require affirming and proving other causes for a "dark soul," which is a purely speculative concept in this context.
Your demand for an affirmative refutation is simply distraction from the perfectly adequate refutation on the table.
