RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Re: I believe \"Reactor\" is aptly named...
Reactor,
Excellent. Indeed, this area you bring up does pose massive scientific problems for your theory. And this is exactly the type of area where my suggestion to "dig deeper" will bring you more information about whether your theory is even plausible. Because this deals directly with your time travel information theory, I am going to lift this quote and reply to it, in depth, over in your main thread in TT claims... if that is OK with you. But suffice it to say, many scientists have pondered and worked on this problem area you bring up. And as we discuss who these scientists were and what their scientific conclusions were, I think you may begin to see the probability of your theory being "right" are very low. But let's examine this over in the other thread, OK?
That might very well be true. But the most important aspect of this statement of yours is that it is not at all relevant to proving (or falsifying) your claim with regards to time travel via computers and random counters. Do you agree that it is not relevant to your claim? You see, this statement of yours is a perfect example of where things can start to fall apart in a debate with you over your theory. This statement can be viewed as a means for you to try and take a discussion away from a point which poses a problem to your theory. From my side, a statement like this sounds like a "defensive tactic" that is invoked (perhaps even unconsciously) to try and derail a proper falsification of your theory.
Again let's remember the scientific approach: The best thing you can do is TRY to falsify your theory. And that means by trying to defend it with statements or claims that are not relevant to your theory, is seen as decidedly unscientific. So what I propose in the future of our discussions is this: If/when you ever make such statements like the above that are not relevant to your time traveling claim, and can be seen as trying to take the discussion off the prime topic (attempting to falsify your claim) then I will reply with the words "non-sequitor" (as in "this does not follow from, or is otherwise irrelevant to, your TT claim"). I will highlight your statement as not relevant to your claim. I would then expect you to admit it is not relevant so we can then return to the prime topic. If you do not admit when these things come up, then we will become engaged in another bickering match.
Good?
RMT
Reactor,
Excellent. Indeed, this area you bring up does pose massive scientific problems for your theory. And this is exactly the type of area where my suggestion to "dig deeper" will bring you more information about whether your theory is even plausible. Because this deals directly with your time travel information theory, I am going to lift this quote and reply to it, in depth, over in your main thread in TT claims... if that is OK with you. But suffice it to say, many scientists have pondered and worked on this problem area you bring up. And as we discuss who these scientists were and what their scientific conclusions were, I think you may begin to see the probability of your theory being "right" are very low. But let's examine this over in the other thread, OK?
That might very well be true. But the most important aspect of this statement of yours is that it is not at all relevant to proving (or falsifying) your claim with regards to time travel via computers and random counters. Do you agree that it is not relevant to your claim? You see, this statement of yours is a perfect example of where things can start to fall apart in a debate with you over your theory. This statement can be viewed as a means for you to try and take a discussion away from a point which poses a problem to your theory. From my side, a statement like this sounds like a "defensive tactic" that is invoked (perhaps even unconsciously) to try and derail a proper falsification of your theory.
Again let's remember the scientific approach: The best thing you can do is TRY to falsify your theory. And that means by trying to defend it with statements or claims that are not relevant to your theory, is seen as decidedly unscientific. So what I propose in the future of our discussions is this: If/when you ever make such statements like the above that are not relevant to your time traveling claim, and can be seen as trying to take the discussion off the prime topic (attempting to falsify your claim) then I will reply with the words "non-sequitor" (as in "this does not follow from, or is otherwise irrelevant to, your TT claim"). I will highlight your statement as not relevant to your claim. I would then expect you to admit it is not relevant so we can then return to the prime topic. If you do not admit when these things come up, then we will become engaged in another bickering match.
Good?
RMT
