This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comments by bendigeidfran

Go to: In defence of obscure words

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 99 by bendigeidfran

It's a mistake for them, but not for me it's true.

Could it be possible! This old saint has not yet heard in his forest that language is dead!

Thus spoke Bendithustra.

Fabulous Bendi! You've made the thread gorgeous. NewtonKeats comboweave. Bit of peer review.

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:31:06 UTC | #937642

Go to: In defence of obscure words

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 97 by bendigeidfran

So there you go Will, there are morethanwords, lessthanwords, inbetween, and they have no objective definitions. Even though you look them up. Long way up isn't it? Even with no up or down.

Now I think it would be a mistake for you to try writing. And a mistake for Damien to try drawing. Because then we may look at Leonardo.

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:59:29 UTC | #937636

Go to: In defence of obscure words

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 94 by bendigeidfran

Hey Amos, let's write in teensy weensy font. It would be more obscure. Which is better. Or we could stand further away from the words. Make it difficult. We could leave ev ry hi d l tt r o t. This man is stupid.

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:41:21 UTC | #937466

Go to: In defence of obscure words

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 93 by bendigeidfran

A word is a currency. There's a run on Will's accounts. Now we may revalue his intellectual wealth. He's a pauper. He thought he was a philanthropist. Unwrap his gift, the box is empty.

Carry on Mr. Self. You write in ice. Your words are frozen. Sparkless. Lifeless. Time will melt you to nothing. You are pianola, never composer. What you find difficult, others intuit.

Now I can only teach you as much as you can learn. Lesson the first:- collecting words won't make you richer, if you don't know how to spend them. Just more staccato. Why don't you buy a new laptop? See if that helps. Get the same one Nabokov used.

And while you're at it, get a new voice. You dreared out of the world service last night and annoyed me greatly. Download Hawking's, it's more tuneful.

As for smacking children's heads onto concrete, we'll put that down to your being 'dangerous'. Like a thespian's rehearsals.

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:24:18 UTC | #937414

Go to: In defence of obscure words

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 88 by bendigeidfran

He reminds me of my mother. I don't mean old, german, and moaning about arthritis. I mean much more boring than that. Germans are ace at words. Have Zurechtmachung. Hey you can just look them up. And poor Will is no longer so 'special'.

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:41:08 UTC | #937173

Go to: In defence of obscure words

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 85 by bendigeidfran

Will should go and work for that strange French organisation. France. There you go Will, we call that wit. It's not the same as drone.

Carto your blog would be awful. Now we don't know what I mean by awful until I contratext it. Let's leave you guessing. Anyway you should be off the internet, and out * deleted *, you good lookin' doll, you.

Now what would Mr.Self have us do with awful? We can't be having more than one word per word. There can't be room.

There's an almost-interesting llel with the quest for objective morality, and the wish to write other people.

But let's not read Self. * smack head * He can't even do punctuation.

I know, let's write Shakes in txt. That'll annoy him. 2B?! That was my Mel Gibson. The youngsters are being naughty. Again! They won't be able to spell. All concepts will be lost. lol. etc.

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 08:42:52 UTC | #937154

Go to: "It is written"

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by bendigeidfran

Do say you want to hear the bit when he said the Sun was conscious. And that he wondered what it was thinking. He had spent some time on a lei-line with mythologists you see. But when he put it to Sir Martin he was summarily dismissed. Such is the dogma.

He said lots.

He said if you put a spring scale in a dog's lead, and show it a bone, you can measure it's desire - for which evolution has no explanation.

He said over-unity devices would go a long way to solving the energy crisis. Surely super-unity, and surely completely solve. But anyway, he said there should be prizes. Lest infinite wealth be insufficient motivation.

He said the NHS could save billions by not relying so much on mechanistic medicine. Now wouldn't that be NICE.

Now when the audience - it was pixies - fed back approval, he reached for the ubersky. And grasped it.

Libet had it back to front. Now that's fine in isolation, but rather fucks his telepathitexttastic move order. Telepathy is done via mobile phone, you understand. Hence the funding issue. He can't do roulette.

He had constants varying willy-nilly. C was most naughty. Now that's good news, in that Hiroshima didn't happen, but awkward for sat-navs.

He had g free as well. 'Within limits'. But not enough for Mars to mate with Venus for his Gaia. Not without anyone noticing.

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:57:21 UTC | #937039

Go to: "It is written"

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 24 by bendigeidfran

Maktub. Yes. Now why do omnipotent telepaths like books? I saw Sheldrake not long ago - always nice when a telepath makes the extra effort of appearing in person - and by thunder! He was not 'conventionally coherent'.

It was, by non-coincidence, the day of the grand national. Thus we had a sweep-stake. Humans do that sortofthing. Fargreaterthanchance Rupert had 'Synchronised'. It promptly horseled off in the wrong direction, and Rupert quoth this demonstrated animals have minds of their own. For which science has no explanation.

Verily, the race ensued, and egad! for his ceffyl was kill-ed. How can a horse with three legs live? The lovers of horses telt us.

They cannot. For then they maketh fuck all money.

Nawrte. Rupert quoth ten dogmas. He did. And he got merely 9.5 wrong. Would you like to hear them? I don't want to derail, but he's not worth a thread.

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:21:04 UTC | #937028

Go to: In defence of obscure words

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 65 by bendigeidfran

Comment 56 by Richard Dawkins

Wel, you write purtee, more Keats than Orwell. Now however many rainbows there are, he was bled to death by not-then-alternative medicine. Bit of a waste. Now if you want to downscribe to catholics etc, it ain't going to be so pretty. Ghost-of-Hitch says keep being strident. But you never have been.

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:39:46 UTC | #937019

Go to: In defence of obscure words

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 64 by bendigeidfran

Comment 63 by Jos Gibbons

Then again, perhaps they wouldn't. Put up the objectively correct ones.

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:13:38 UTC | #937011

Go to: In defence of obscure words

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 62 by bendigeidfran

Wel, I can't find the strength to read Will again, plus my up arrow points at 90* to the vertical. I don't want to scroll into the wall - that way lies almost certain peril. So I'll try and remember both things he said. You check for me.

Did he say there should be more grammar? Pretend he did. The greater the rules, the less the role of the creator. This is why computer programmers only write haikus. Which are very rarely poetry. That may be a bit of a generalization, but I think you'll find it correct in at least 100% of cases.

Did he say the Self-deprecating 'Others have said' or similar? It's not clear, since he can't write very well, and shows no appreciation of what grammar or words are, but did he sort of say he might be as 'difficult' as Shakes and Nabokov? That would at least make his article hilarious. He can't be deprecated enough.

Now number of woids what there is, compared to number of woids Self knows = he knows approx f all. That is not something to boast about. He is but wiki-clever. The field is levelled, and he's panicking we'll measure by reasoning ability. Or poetics.

He was also not nearly nasty enough about Damien. What was the 'shock' value again? Is it art? It's much more than that. The very birth of anatomy by the sound of it. Is he a townie? Do cows have insides?

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:47:09 UTC | #937006

Go to: We asked "Do you really believe ___" and they said yes. Now what?

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 413 by bendigeidfran

Hey shrommer old bean, you mustn't be getting so puzzled.

Now on non-godly matters, an atheist is a blank page. Your graffitti doesn't count. That's why you've got the blank face.

So an atheist can pull any old morality out of his mind. And aren't there some odd ones out there?

They even get to be anti-genocide, anti-torture, anti-human sacrifice. All these sort of exciting things.

The cruciphile is not so blessed. He has to be pro-genocide, pro-torture, pro-human sacrifice. etc. In fact, he has to love it.

Now set yourself free. Come and join us etc.

You see, to pop everyone off you have to make the case for it. No case is not a case. You've got it now, haven't you? Yes.

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:13:47 UTC | #937001

Go to: We asked "Do you really believe ___" and they said yes. Now what?

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 407 by bendigeidfran

Well the nihilist doesn't say anything really. He finds saying things pointless. People who are faux-nihilists are very positive about things not mattering. This is an unjustifiable position. Now if you killed everybody, no one would mind. You could even make it fun, with laughing gas or something. There are practical difficulties, and it's unlikely to gain popular support. But it does reveal the fabricated nature of moral philosopher axioms. Singer highlights this very well - at least he follows to his ridiculous conclusions.

btw who liked Nietzsche here? I've forgotten. Anyway he's the most enormous larks. I wasn't expecting him to be fun. It's all anti-nihilism. The chapter headings in ecce homo make me want to get syphilis.

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:17:18 UTC | #936945

Go to: In defence of obscure words

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 49 by bendigeidfran

Comment 36 by Ignorant Amos

I've been very busy being dead. It's not all it's cracked up to be. In fact I've no idea why it's so popular.

Comment 42 by Alternative Carpark

See Pinker

Now who said Orwell? He tends towards journalism - you can pretty things up, but Self doesn't. Note to Self - downers is the wrong direction.

An obscure word is a step away from the mentalese, an extra translation. You had better make the break in flow worthwhile. Reading Self is a marathon with no prize.

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:51:34 UTC | #936943

Go to: In defence of obscure words

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 28 by bendigeidfran

Old coins worth more? What a sulker. He can't rig the auction anyway. I've got some obscure words for him to love. A whole language. There may be other languages. And older words. What a banana. If he were only paid per concept, rather than by the word.

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 20:38:50 UTC | #936796

Go to: LHC: Higgs boson 'may have been glimpsed'

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 111 by bendigeidfran

'Put your hands up if you think I'm blond'. What a species.

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:30:14 UTC | #907860

Go to: LHC: Higgs boson 'may have been glimpsed'

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 110 by bendigeidfran

If you're going to have paraconsistent logic for exciting new physics you may as well write a shorter equation.

You're later compositions until you decompose and can't get any later consciousness is an illusion, the later compositions are illuded by persistence of envision.

I told you that yonks ago. You can see it sparked up, by thought but not feel - always split your thoughts and feels - if you want to see where feels are done, find people without them and see what's not there.

A God is as real as pain, or love if you prefer, and that is the hard problem - removing the phantom limb. It's not there.

Soma holiday for me. Don't try that thing what I said in Mach. btw. It was in jest.

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:22:55 UTC | #907859

Go to: LHC: Higgs boson 'may have been glimpsed'

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 108 by bendigeidfran

You'll keep looking for nothing and finding it. Both ends of the telescope.

I suppose it's in the balance. The luck is in the scales before the eyes. On the one hand I am wired for empathy and must watch my world die. On the other hand, as far as I know, I've never been eaten by a crocodile. And all this because the brain was thought to be in the head, whereas it is brought by the wind from the caspian sea.

I'll give you con somme soup dragons some universal dialectical materialism. The aliens will eat each other, their kin less, there will be manifold formats and strategies - all piss-poorly executed - and any later minds worthy of the name will 'transcend the miracle' and have better machines to 'talk' to. They're not going to want to play intergalactic correspondence chess with dimwits at a move a century.

If you want to emote to someone by coincidence as dumb as you from another world, go to Machynlleth. Say 'I come in peace' in English and it actually might be worth watching.

Mr E's was the best btw, he just decohered a bit sooner than he could realise. I see he's now somewhat in vogue - it's a fashion industry after all.

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:51:14 UTC | #907663

Go to: LHC: Higgs boson 'may have been glimpsed'

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 106 by bendigeidfran

You're a later composition until you decompose and can't get any later. It's not a guess. Nihilism is pointless, apathy no motivation, genocide absurd etc etc. I've been dead since 1971. It's quite liberating really. I've had some of my best times dead, and intend to remain so for as long as I can, barring accidents. In fact I like it so much I die 3x a second or whatever it is. The secret is

Timing now you can't have it both ways yaffle, we're either the lucky ones, or we're the whimpering in fear with the rasping parasites. I'm afraid it's the raspers. So there's a more constructive quest for the bored persons.

But instead you're going to seriously consider killing a lot of persianians because a man that talks to flags and watches snuff movies in public tells you it's a good idea, just like he told you someone who couldn't organise a DVD was running the world. Goebbels is crying with jealousy. It's a Godwin. He usually wins amongst the credulous.

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:20:00 UTC | #907197

Go to: LHC: Higgs boson 'may have been glimpsed'

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 97 by bendigeidfran

It's best just to read my posts, and forgive the mods who know not what they read. When I told Mavra that the King of Spain was before her, she clasped her hands and nearly died of fright. The stupid woman had never seen a King of Spain before. Gogol that. He's much funnier than Kaku.

Now softly, softly, some brief psychology. Hitch 'there was once a baseball, my children ask what's outside. I say I don't know. And I don't think anyone can do any better'. Sam 'it may have required a miracle. And I don't think anyone...' - look at the projection. A particularly funny one is when people say 'The easiest way to imagine this is...' and then tell you, with a straight face, the true limit of their imagination, not yours, which in happier moments, they fancy they can exceed. 'There may be 11 dimensions...' Well yes, there may be 111. Next line 'The easiest way to imagine this is...' and they reveal their modesty.

Now if you're of woman born, there isn't any easy way to imagine how clever I am. I can't be impressed, because I know what thought is, and which machines are cleverer. I'm not expecting any higher intelligence to visit. But you're all going to Mars, or wherever Hawking tells you - the further the better - and you're going to keep looking for alien bacteria, because you find soup exciting and can't imagine what life is, or that the vast majority of it is invisible, and that you could find more than you could cope with under your fingernail without getting out of bed.

What is it? Donner Kruger? Sounds like a champagne kebab. Don't imagine I'm going to bother to click it up so as not to appear silly before ants. I value your opinion. You can't see further than you can, neither can I, but I can see rather further than you.

Now you've had the no gut proof, in various formats, and I'm enormously surprised you will continue your quest to infinity and beyond. What a stupid language with no you plural. If you still want to make the leap, I wouldn't start from here. If you fancy it extrinsically falsifiable, for some reason that escapes you, then your problem becomes the infinity of postulates. You might be some time. It looks like you have billions to spare, while people starve, and absent objective morality you find decisions difficult. It looks like you find tinsel magpie extended phenotypical baubles reassuring. It looks like you find Mohammedanism more deadly than economics. It looks like you clap money-bulimia for philanthropy. Can you eat more than you can? It must have been a good idea to try on the Savannah. It looks like some appetites appear insatiable to those who can only see through themselves.

I talk to you out of pity, projected of course. I think you're all - and how tedious to have to add all - very silly, and I am but slightly sillier. You are magic or machinery. If you're magic you had better pick the correct sorcerer from the infinity. If you're machinery, you're going to completely fix yourselves and reverse engineer subjective reality. Long, long before the spaceship leaves. Otherwise I'd pay for the ramp. Have that with your cornflakes.

Half a century ago can machines think was something clever to ask. Our answer then, was, of course, to force-chemically xxxx him to death. It's values like that we were fighting for. And look how far we've come. Isn't evolution quick. Now build a bigger telescope and see if you can't look further up your arses. Peer review yourselves, I can't tell you apart. It looks like I could sell you anything but the truth. It's not quite free, the price is the cost, the value rather more, but you can't afford the thinking.

He won't find the correct number.

Sun, 08 Jan 2012 12:01:15 UTC | #906446

Go to: LHC: Higgs boson 'may have been glimpsed'

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 83 by bendigeidfran

Closer to both wrong contradictory. Intermittent logic algorithms.

Now look at the doe-eyed Bambi's impressive equation. You are told it's impressive by his neotenous giggles. He's using more than words. You do know what language is, don't you? And you do know words and maths are synonymous. Now he could transcribe it into words, couldn't he, but then he wouldn't get away with it. Yet it would be far longer and appear more elaborate.

Now why does he want to get to one coherent sentence? This delusional obsession appears ubiquitous.

The LHC is as welcome a present as Anne Frank's drumkit. Now mate me. I have insulted you and you must demand satisfaction.

It shouldn't take you long because you can just cut and paste from the global grandmaster community. It will only be difficult if they all disagree with each other as if it were all horseshit. You'll have to play out of book then won't you? And you're not playing Deep Blue.

If you find gongs and capes impressive, look who fell for magic mouse. If you find technical ability at arithmetic impressive, remember you can do faster harder sums walking, without trying. Perhaps fall back on 50,000,000 fans can't be wrong. But seeing the embarrassing clutter on the thread I think run away is indeed the best option remaining.

Fri, 06 Jan 2012 09:10:11 UTC | #905779

Go to: LHC: Higgs boson 'may have been glimpsed'

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 70 by bendigeidfran

Manifold theories from the same data = suspect data. Do say you've noticed wmap is inside. Do say you've noticed, after new particles pretended, Cox's lines meet at a non-objective datum. It's not his responsibility, it's diffused over many copies. I recommend he glimpse something even more fundamental, to find later.

Lacking an external calibrant, empiricism will distill to min. 2 theories, both incorrect. Empiricism will say both are correct. That's because they must be derived by empiricism, since it is the only way.

Note we're not bothering with pre-empiricism concerns, which needn't concern us.

I'm astonished at how stupid you all are. That's because astonishment is a delusion, well understood, invalid but functioning. It looks like some replication has been going on. 7 billion copies of 1 imbecile. If you look at a necker cube, you have 2 answers, both wrong. You can't have both right can you? All we're having for our foundational epistemology is logic true. By all means prove it wrong and get back to me. By all means wait until wmap is outside. By all means wait, not long now we're told, for Mr.D and his collaborator's spectacular qcalcs. Maybe you prefer to resign empiricism here anyway, and project to 'elsewhence'. Let's hope the Dr.Fermiwho aliens from the previous future elsewhere are not going to spoil things.

The LHC is sufficiently advanced as to be indistinguishable from tragic. Built and operated within spacetime, designed to give wrong answers, don't then bleat to the world that you don't know what's going on. Don't say 'that's funny, it worked for Hiroshima'. It's a maths practical, smashing equations together, and drawing pictures.

Now if you want to say you can't prove logic true either, since that might be circular, we were having it anyway to pretendulate the universality of physics within a spacetime.

I object to arbitrarily intermittent logic. Are you having it true or not? Can you make up your minds, or are they making up you? The Self delusion wins again. Are you after a Templeton? This desperate creationism rather unifies the trajesteria doesn't it? And we see, like the true book-believing creationists they are, on the subject of the most prestigious experiment in the history of humanity, on the world's most prestigious science website we are told, who has run away to talk about fairies.

What sort of a physicist is Cox anyway? He should be autistic and lack charisma. He can't even forget to dress, or make hilarious guesses at Biology.

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 15:08:16 UTC | #905526

Go to: LHC: Higgs boson 'may have been glimpsed'

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 62 by bendigeidfran

Blwyddyn newydd dda. How many main lines would you say there are? According to the experts, the subject is, to a good approximation, completely incorrect.

Here's Dreamboy LHC

http://www.ted.com/talks/brian_cox_on_cern_s_supercollider.html

A spectacular sleight of mind I choose at random.

I'm afraid, as not quite mediocre, you are going to have to give 110%, like a footballer. A GUT is impossible. I'm not saying it appears difficult. The minimum within spacetime is two fundamental theories, which will both be wrong, both work higher up - that's how they were distilled - but be eternally incompatible.

Noticing it appeared difficult within spacetime, but not noticing why, and trained to not expect it, sets of maths have been projected beyond and unified 'there', with zero justification, and not a small touch of humanity.

Tue, 03 Jan 2012 09:23:47 UTC | #904831

Go to: LHC: Higgs boson 'may have been glimpsed'

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 59 by bendigeidfran

Or is it a hidden partivaricle that behaves like 1.25?

This is a lecture, not a Q &A. I'm telling you why secondary science works, but fundamental ultimately doesn't. Remember I'm unlikely to find you particularly interesting. It's a gift I may get bored of unwrapping.

Perhaps it's my selfish genes manifesting as altruistic. This sort of miracle must be guarded against, Mr. Philosopher advises. My indeed.

Try not to think with your gut.

Xmas now. Merry Christmas!

Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:52:31 UTC | #902150

Go to: LHC: Higgs boson 'may have been glimpsed'

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 55 by bendigeidfran

Bit tedious solving quantum physics, but there's no charge. Consider this a free Christmas lecture. All but the dumbest can get it. All relevant criticism is redundant.

Now if you all did your homework, particularly if you had a small child watching with you, then you will have witnessed a performing seal's crassly circular blunders, followed by the applause of ants. Now you know what the LHC is worth.

Having dried/changed our underwear, we move on to further larks. We'll try not to mock anyone in a wheelchair for their infinitely regressing times - he should have been content with all the money he's saved on shoes - and we'll try not to mention the funniest line by a scientist in recent times, 'Many realms is as real as quarks'. Pteradactyls are real btw.

Nawrte, someone once said, don't be distracted by Hiroshima or something. Looks a bit like a test of fundamental reality from within it sort of thing. Could give one some confidence in one's secondary eqns, couldn't it? But fundamental?

Let's have a bit more fun.

The science is all going superduper, when all of a sudden the dials say 2 + 2 = 5. What naughty dials. But wait! We have discovered a fundamental constant! What is it? 1.25? Someone will check the sums, as I may have said. We'll call it the B. constant. Now unless we're very much retarded, this is telling us something very important about the nature of the universe. For if this constant were to vary by an infinitessimal amount....

Best larks ever.

Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:39:15 UTC | #901939

Go to: LHC: Higgs boson 'may have been glimpsed'

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 51 by bendigeidfran

Meanwhile, do watch Mr. Dreamboy @ TED pitching bbang as objective datum, and creating new particles to not-find. Supercircularity. He says it's as good a creation story as any other.

What enormous larks!

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:05:45 UTC | #901589

Go to: LHC: Higgs boson 'may have been glimpsed'

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 50 by bendigeidfran

You see we're not quite 1:1 with ultimate reality. We're slightly out of line, slightly off-message. That's what qed etc was trying to tell us. But you had to be able to see the whole chain to see it.

Wissenschaft. I think Scat will get it first.

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:03:51 UTC | #901588

Go to: LHC: Higgs boson 'may have been glimpsed'

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 47 by bendigeidfran

Now for our very own Scat. If consc. exp. is not real, what is? Well for this you have to be able to count to a fraction. That's a bit more counting actually. But the answer is it's nearly real. But not quite 1:1.

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:12:45 UTC | #900808

Go to: LHC: Higgs boson 'may have been glimpsed'

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 45 by bendigeidfran

Well, I can count to two.

Pretend you got 2 theories and you want to get to 1. Both work – that's how you got them.

You can't completely check 1 against fundamental reality from within it.

You can't have logic wrong, as statement or conclusion.

When an 'observation' is illogical, something is wrong, somewhere in the chain.

You're with me aren't you. You can count to two, and the rest is multiples.

You're not distracted by larger numbers, moon landings, or Hiroshima.

Now simplify – mere division.

Remove all multiples of observers and instruments (conscious or not), and you see you can't do it all with 1. One spacetime fine, 2 'dials' minimum.

If you've got down to 2, they're going to be incompatible. Or you'd have 1.

A GUT is ultimately circular, uncheckable, impossible.

You can't get 1:1 with ultimate reality, only nearly 1:1.

Read that very carefully. I'm a very 'special' person, and I've got a certificate.

Now remember we said when an observation is illogical, something is wrong, somewhere in the chain. Humans don't like that sort of thing.

We've spent a century adding links – magic at both ends – unsuccessfully trying to get to 1, because we forgot to check if that was going to be completely possible, because the scientific method works so well, all the way up to singular fundamental science, when you run out of anything to check against. I'm not sure what they were expecting to see when they got there, but I'd expect fundamental theories indivisible with nonsense on dials.

Now one end of the chain we managed magical consciousness. You can't really blame anyone before – Libet? - very hard to escape subjective reality anyway, and appreciate you're (not quite) dead. Just as hard as it was to feel the earth moving around the sun. So this end was accidentally 'fixed', and everyone agreed, and indeed most still do. The word's terribly unhelpful – I don't make the words up – remember words are made up, and may contain hidden extras. Compare life on any abiogenesis thread.

Nothing was more natural, than to keep looking the other end of the telescope, and try to solve the nonsense there. All the maths is fine – global correcting feedback loop – it's the same language they all used. Maths is accelerated words, nifty algorithms accelerated maths. But when you start from nonsense, things get very funny, very quickly, however clever you are.

And so we got magic mice, hidden dragons, many realms, and silly strings.

Sun, 18 Dec 2011 10:35:29 UTC | #900569

Go to: LHC: Higgs boson 'may have been glimpsed'

bendigeidfran's Avatar Jump to comment 41 by bendigeidfran

It's not a particularly strong field is it? See also agnostic thread. Now only the ability to count to two is required. Cysgu'n dawel, Albert x

Nadolig llawen to the rest of you hidden variables.

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:57:11 UTC | #899738