Jump to content

Precognition and Eternalism


Salubrius

Recommended Posts

No one here can prove I'm wrong.

It isn't that I've had any opportunity to present my work. Interestingly, no one cares. I didn't lay out my explanation beyond a paragraph or two that was misunderstood but not clarfified. You all (and I mean ALL) after so many of my posts, have only attacked and belittled and yet... you are attacking the idea, not the ex[planation, because it never was presented.

You feel confident as a group, as if safe in your numbers, but never examine the fact that your minds were made up long ago, and you can't learn any more.

It is childish behavior. If you examine the thread and other related ones, you will see that you have written far more about what you bet I am saying than what I'm trying to have the opportunity to say.

What I expect as an answer to this comment is, "Because you don't know what you're talking anout1"

And what did I talk about? Nothing yet. Nothing in terms of an explanation.

I find that ridiculous for grown-ups who would claim to be open minded. All I see is a lot of childish behavior.

I could normally understand how difficult it might be to explain a different way of seeing things, because it's very hard to

grasp this explanation. People might politely say, "I just don't get it! Sorry!". But here, I am dealing with aggressive and not particularly curious people who pretend they know a lot more than they do.

I can explain why I say subjective reality makes sense. That won't happen though. Will it? Not in a blue moon.

Maybe just one of you, someone with a few ounces of integrity, will ask me, "Okay, I will stick with your explanation until I find a problem with it."

That's not what this forum is for, is it?

I thought it was like this:

1) Make a claim.

2) Discuss explanation.

3) Find weaknesses in Explanation (or not).

4) Adjust thinking if necessary to accommodate new information.

 

Not complicated. Real science, not BS power politics.

Edited by Dave Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Us, us us. We, we, we.

Speak for yourself. You aren't a child (I'm assuming).

You think you are a team. Did you notice that? BS power politics. I can prove subjective reality is a better explanation. That would be either a positive or negative .But you don't want an explanation.

You are in love with your ignorance.

"Please, oh please, Anything but an explanation!"

 

Next?

Edited by Dave Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Us, us us. We, we, we.

Speak for yourself. You aren't a child (I'm assuming).

You think you are a team. Did you notice that? BS power politics.

Subjective reality is not a negative. it is a thing I can explain. The word, 'Loch Ness Monster' isn't a negative. The proof isn't there. I can prove subjective reality is a better explanation. That would be either a positive or negative .But you don't want an explanation.

You are in love with your ignorance.

"Please, oh please, Anything but an explanation!"

 

Next?

 

Although I do not claim to know or understand the opinion you are trying to convey, I do know that how you perceive or interpret our comments is a subjective aspect of your reality. What this means is that how you understand and receive our comments may not be what we are actually conveying to you. Your understanding or interpretation of our comments is under you control, not ours. Trying to prove something doesn't exist when there's no evidence that it ever has existed is what is meant by an inability to prove a negative. Rather than asking the readers of your comments here to prove you're wrong--if that is the reason for all of this--the onus is on you to prove you're right. Proving you're right requires evidence in science that can be independently verified. If you find no agreement with or acceptance of your opinion or perspective, it's more likely that you have not provided sufficient or convincing evidence in support rather than the ignorance of your audience--in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I will stick with your explanation until I find a problem with it.

But please keep it consice.

I thought it was like this:

1) Make a claim.

2) Discuss explanation.

3) Find weaknesses in Explanation (or not).

4) Adjust thinking if necessary to accommodate new information.

 

Not complicated. Real science, not BS power politics.

Real science goes like this:

1) make claim

2) provide evidence

3) discuss/critisice/scrutinise/etc...

 

You can philosophise all you want, but don't call it science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Us, us us. We, we, we.

Speak for yourself. You aren't a child (I'm assuming).

You think you are a team. Did you notice that? BS power politics. I can prove subjective reality is a better explanation. That would be either a positive or negative .But you don't want an explanation.

You are in love with your ignorance.

"Please, oh please, Anything but an explanation!"

 

Next?

You said "no one here". That addresses a body of people. Your statement lumbs me and everyone else in here together. So I responded with "us" rather than typing out "me and all the others in here you say can't prove you wrong".

 

You are right, I don't want explanations rooted in your feelings. I would like facts and examples of methods which can be used to prove your claims.

Edited by Ten oz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never was given the chance to provide any evidence. Now, I simply have run out of time.

Nothing to say any more.

 

This, seemingly, final post here suggests that you had at least this chance to provide your evidence but chose not to do so. Nevertheless, I wish you well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.