It's a pity I'm not taking discrete structures until this fall. BF's claims about math and logic fall somewhat into that realm of study, and it would've been fun before it became obvious he was just acting like a nasty pseudo-troll when challenged.
Skepticism and The Normal
- Thread starter WWHP
- Start date
Mojo
Mostly harmless
He claims to have spoken to a number of academics (and others) about this and to have received a positive response. For example:
He even claims that some of these are working with him on the idea.
But he refuses to name any of them in case we check his story.
He has also said that there are a number of people who understand OS 012, and can explain it better than he can, but he has declined to cite any of them, or to invite any of them here to explain it.
flimflam_machine
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2007
- Messages
- 245
So, according to this Princeton math professor, infinity = 2.
I'm with pv+, Bubb just wants our attention. He has explicitly stated that his idea of success is a prolonged discussion, not necessarily with any resolution. He does seem to like it when people agree with him (or at least accept that he has spelled something correctly), but only so he can crow about it later. He also makes no real effort to actually convince anyone since he mantains his pathetic tactic of vomiting fluffy, semi-illiterate verbiage "Go on! Infer, feel and think!... blah blah blah" It has been repeatedly pointed out that if he presented his ideas briefly, coherently and using common terminology then they could actually be critiqued, which is what he says he is after ("antithesis"), but the consistent fact throughout all these threads is that he has still failed to make his system clear or explain how it works.
Taking Bubb's behaviour as a whole (over this thread, the previous one here and the one at bs.net) I'm convinced that Bubb is simply a troll. I think he takes pathetic pleasure in :
- raising a discussion that is superficially interesting, but ultimately vacuous.
- as he himself has suggested, maintaining a discussion that is at once attractive (some interesting subject matter has been brought in from outside) and repulsive (Bubb's behaviour and style).
- being insulting, but not so insulting that people instantly leave.
- giving the impression that he may be onto something revolutionary but never revealing what it is ("I know a secret but I'm not going to tell you.. nyah nyah nyah etc."), in order to string out the discussion.
- jumping on the bandwagon of any topic that is raised (or occasionally introducing one e.g., qualia) and claiming that they support his ideas (often with reference to some eminent scientist/mathematician/philosopher etc.).
- never, under any circumstances admitting that he is/was wrong and very obviously being immune to reason. This is such a fascinatingly messed up character flaw that it keeps people coming back just to see if they can get through to the deluded tosspot that he is actually mistaken.
At all these, he is surprisingly skilled. Does this skill make up for his obvious lack of any other talent? Sadly no.
Does Bubb actually believe what he writes? I still don't know for sure, but I'd strongly guess "no", it's all just a wind up. If he does believe it then I feel sorry for him for being quite so deluded; if he doesn't believe it then I feel sorry for him for not having anything better to do, and being sad enough to get some sort of gratification from trolling.
So on the basis that Bubb is simply a troll I'd say that what he really wants from us is a hefty kick in the knackers.
I'm with pv+, Bubb just wants our attention. He has explicitly stated that his idea of success is a prolonged discussion, not necessarily with any resolution. He does seem to like it when people agree with him (or at least accept that he has spelled something correctly), but only so he can crow about it later. He also makes no real effort to actually convince anyone since he mantains his pathetic tactic of vomiting fluffy, semi-illiterate verbiage "Go on! Infer, feel and think!... blah blah blah" It has been repeatedly pointed out that if he presented his ideas briefly, coherently and using common terminology then they could actually be critiqued, which is what he says he is after ("antithesis"), but the consistent fact throughout all these threads is that he has still failed to make his system clear or explain how it works.
Taking Bubb's behaviour as a whole (over this thread, the previous one here and the one at bs.net) I'm convinced that Bubb is simply a troll. I think he takes pathetic pleasure in :
- raising a discussion that is superficially interesting, but ultimately vacuous.
- as he himself has suggested, maintaining a discussion that is at once attractive (some interesting subject matter has been brought in from outside) and repulsive (Bubb's behaviour and style).
- being insulting, but not so insulting that people instantly leave.
- giving the impression that he may be onto something revolutionary but never revealing what it is ("I know a secret but I'm not going to tell you.. nyah nyah nyah etc."), in order to string out the discussion.
- jumping on the bandwagon of any topic that is raised (or occasionally introducing one e.g., qualia) and claiming that they support his ideas (often with reference to some eminent scientist/mathematician/philosopher etc.).
- never, under any circumstances admitting that he is/was wrong and very obviously being immune to reason. This is such a fascinatingly messed up character flaw that it keeps people coming back just to see if they can get through to the deluded tosspot that he is actually mistaken.
At all these, he is surprisingly skilled. Does this skill make up for his obvious lack of any other talent? Sadly no.
Does Bubb actually believe what he writes? I still don't know for sure, but I'd strongly guess "no", it's all just a wind up. If he does believe it then I feel sorry for him for being quite so deluded; if he doesn't believe it then I feel sorry for him for not having anything better to do, and being sad enough to get some sort of gratification from trolling.
So on the basis that Bubb is simply a troll I'd say that what he really wants from us is a hefty kick in the knackers.
I'm really sorry I cant participate in this discussion right now, my responsibility with work is at a critical stage right now and need all the extra brain power I can get. I will of course be back here when things simmer down and am thrilled to see this discussion continue.
Until then, check out this article. Are these scientists saying that color is BOTH objective and subjective? My lord I believe they are!
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/061015_banana.htm
Lotsa Love,
Bubblefish
Until then, check out this article. Are these scientists saying that color is BOTH objective and subjective? My lord I believe they are!
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/061015_banana.htm
Lotsa Love,
Bubblefish
Objective Reality supporting my arguments once again. Check out this link as well. This is what I have been developing and talking about for years.
http://www.jewcy.com/feature/11-16/wiki_wars
If you don't like OS 0 1 2, your not going to like the future.
http://www.jewcy.com/feature/11-16/wiki_wars
If you don't like OS 0 1 2, your not going to like the future.
Color me completely unsurprised. As others have said, this isn't about whether or not his idea holds water; it's whether or not he can get anyone to take him seriously.
Well, to quote Sam Goldwyn, "Include me out."
If OS 012 is anything more than two-valued logic by any other name, I'd love to have someone else explain it better.
I second that. Or, rather, I don't think he cares about this material in a way that would show real sincerity. He cares about it just enough to try and make other people take it seriously, but he doesn't care about it enough to worry about whether or not it might be trivially true (i.e., nothing new here), or just plain wrong. Small wonder he hasn't discussed this with someone who actually teaches or works with the subject.
It's a little like, oh, claiming to make earth-shattering discoveries in cosmology without ever having taken any basic high-school physics courses.... but we don't know anyone who's ever done that, do we?
(Sorry about the multi-quote)
...yeah. It makes sense now. What he really wants is to rile us up badly enough that he'll get banned, and then he can use that as a badge of pride or further justification that his ideas are right because "orthodox thinkers" won't accept it.
I've seen this sort of thing way too many times to know it never has a happy ending.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
I see you're using "wants" in the David 'Two Brains' Willetts sense of the word.
If you read the post carefully, you will see that is was not a Princeton math professor, but a "princton" one.flimflam machine said:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
If you read all the words in the story you linked to, you'll see that they're saying that colour sensations are affected by expectation and are not purely determined by sensory input.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Unfortunately for you, that article does not describe what you claim OS 012 does. It describes a "lose-lose" situation in which both parties to a dispute are dissatisfied:
You in fact claim that the only thing that makes OS 012 distinct from other frameworks is that it can arrive at a "win-win" resolution with which both sides are satisfied:
So it would appear that the Wikipedians are not using OS 012, but one of these other "other frameworks" which you claim OS 012 is distinct from in that it can produce a "win-win" result. Or alternatively, that if they are using OS 012, that it isn't working, or that it is not in any way distinct from these "other frameworks".
Perhaps you should refrain from posting links until you have time to read them.
Last edited:
Fixed it for you
Jim
ETA: I am using the JP178 meanings otf the phrase "the ability" and with this set of meanings, which are intuitive, I am actually not insulting anyone, merely stating an identical meaning to Mojo.
Last edited:
flimflam_machine
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2007
- Messages
- 245
That may, indeed, be one of Bubb's aims, but I was actually using "want" (as Mojo noted) in the following senses: 4 (often want for) lack or be short of something desirable or essential. 5 [FONT="]informal,[/FONT] [FONT="]chiefly Brit.[/FONT] ought to, should, or need to do something. 6 [FONT="]informal,[/FONT] [FONT="]chiefly Brit.[/FONT] (of a thing) require to be attended to.
I don't think Bubb even cares if people take him seriously, as long as they talk to, or even about, him. Actually I think he probably takes more, sad pleasure in getting people to talk about something that is bollocks, but that is presented in a semi-serious way. Of course the most interesting parts of this thread have not actually been about OS012, but about other topics that have been introduced, and then escalated by Bubb's spectacular failure to understand them.
Sounds like a sort of Nash equilibrium (if memory serves) -- which is, again, more grist for the mill of OS 012 being neither particularly original, useful or interesting...
The whole segment of the discussion on music was great, for instance. But, yes, it's just redolent of the old saw that there's no such thing as bad publicity. (Unless you're a sex offender ... cough...)
sinnikal
Muse
I think it was about 50 pages ago that we went through the "game theory" phase of this thread
I think it was about 50 pages ago that we went through the "game theory" phase of this thread
Aaaahh! Busted again!!
A classic example if ever I've seen one.
And if my Bubblefishometer is working correctly, he'll claim he's nor resorting to it, just putting it out there for us to chew on, or some other similar evasion.
"If your ideas had merit, you wouldn't have to sink to this level."
"My ideas do have merit -- you're just too thick to understand them without a little incentive!"
"Give us the ideas. Save the incentive."