Sections 5 to 8 are the meat of how the paper develops the concepts, but here's a quick answer to your questions.

Informational Curvature

"Informational curvature" refers to the geometric structure of the space of probability distributions, especially how sharply that space bends. It’s a concept from information geometry, where the Fisher information metric defines a Riemannian manifold over parameters of probability models.

Mathematically:

g_ij(x)=E[∂log⁡p(x)/∂xⁱ ∂log⁡p(x)/∂x^j]

In the context of quantum path integrals, local variations in probability density i.e., entropy gradients can be treated as a scalar field ϕ(x), whose Laplacian (or curvature) is:

J(x)∝∇2log⁡p(x)

This acts like a potential that biases path amplitudes in extended Feynman integrals. It’s conceptually analogous to how spacetime curvature biases classical trajectories in general relativity.

---

🔹 Entanglement as a Geometric Feature

In this framework, entanglement arises from topological constraints in a higher-dimensional space, specifically, an extension of the usual 3+1D configuration space with an additional spatial coordinate w.

The proposal is that entangled particles are co-located or dynamically linked in this hidden dimension w, and their correlations arise from a conserved topological charge Q(w). This offers a geometric interpretation:

What appears to be nonlocal in 3D is actually local in 4D (x, y, z, w), much like how two points on a folded sheet can be close in 3D but far apart in 2D.

So instead of treating entanglement as just a mathematical artifact of Hilbert space structure, this model embeds it into a causal, geometric mechanism one that’s potentially falsifiable via shifts in Bell correlations or ghost imaging experiments.

Edited July 1Jul 1 by waitaminute

J(x)∝∇2log⁡p(x) should be J(x)∝∇²log⁡p(x)

There is a revised version 6 of the paper, which I've attached, but can be downloaded from the figshare site, where it is listed as version 4, but when downloaded, it's the title as attached to this post..

There have been some interesting arguments from others regarding this paper:

"The main claim in the title and abstract is artificially put in by hand in eq.(30) : It is thus unjustified because the form directly violates Bell inequalities by definition, for a range of epsilons, as epsilon = 0."

Rebuttal:

Regarding the concern that Eq.(30) “directly violates Bell inequalities by definition,” we respectfully clarify that this expression is not inserted arbitrarily, but arises from a first-order perturbative expansion of the extended path integral. Specifically, the informational bias field perturbs the path amplitudes via a coupling term , leading to a modified correlation function. As shown in Section\ref{sec: DysonExpansion}, this shift emerges from a Dyson series expansion applied to the biased action, where is treated as a weak symbolic field that induces geometric coherence in the extended (3+1+1)D configuration space.

The deviation from the standard cosine form in Bell correlations is thus a derived effect of informational curvature, not a definitional assumption. While it is true that for certain forms of , the resulting correlation may exceed the Tsirelson bound, this outcome is not manually imposed but is a physically interpretable signature of symbolic interference structure. The formulation remains testable and falsifiable via quantum-optics experiments, and we have revised the manuscript to make this derivation explicit and distinguish it from ad hoc parameterization.

If the philosophy of the derivation seems correct, it is superficially so, because it is not very well motivated. For instance, 1)why an extra dimension? why not simply a hidden variable. 2) why those Lagrangian typical forms? They are vaguely derived and there are too many unessential analogies with information geometry/gravity or topology that are, in addition, very scarcely justified, such as the alleged charge and Chern-Simons form. This would deserve a clearer demonstration.

Rebuttal to “Superficial Philosophy and Weak Motivation” Critique

1. Why an extra dimension? Why not simply a hidden variable?

The revised paper goes well beyond invoking an extra dimension as a conceptual flourish. The hidden coordinate w is not a placeholder for traditional hidden variables—it serves a precise geometric and topological function within the extended configuration space:

• In contrast to hidden-variable theories (e.g., Bohmian mechanics or GRW), w enables geometric adjacency of entangled particles in (3+1+1)D even when they are spatially separated in (3+1)D.

• Section 13 (“Causality and Special Relativity”) provides a full treatment of how this extension preserves Lorentz invariance and avoids superluminal signaling.

• The Noether-derived topological charge Q(w) emerges naturally from global translational symmetry in w—a structure that a scalar hidden variable could not support without imposing nonlocal postulates.

In essence, w is not an ad hoc dimensional tweak, but a minimal extension that restores Reichenbach-style causality while preserving quantum statistics.

2. Vague Lagrangian Forms and Insufficient Justification?

The revised Lagrangian framework is now mathematically grounded and transparently motivated:

• Section 6 defines the full action in (3+1+1)D, with clear separation into Lagrangian components:

  • Standard Minkowski term (L₃₊₁D)

  • Kinetic term in hidden dimension w, scaled by parameter a

  • Informational bias coupling εφ(x), justified via entropy gradients and Fisher information geometry

• Section 8 derives a field equation for φ(x) from a variational principle, yielding a Helmholtz-style equation with a source term J(x) = ∇² log p(x), which is directly tied to coarse-grained empirical distributions.

These aren’t analogies—they’re operational mechanisms. φ(x) behaves like a physical field, and biasing via εφ(x) is not metaphorical but quantitatively implemented in simulation (see Sections 10 & Appendix D).

3. “Unessential Analogies” to Information Geometry and Topology?

The analogies in the earlier draft have now matured into functional structures with physical consequences:

• Information Geometry: φ(x) emerges from Fisher curvature, which defines the field's dynamics and gives rise to biasing behavior in path amplitudes. It’s no longer hand-waving—it’s mathematically derived, variationally minimized, and reconstructable from experimental data.

• Topology: Q(w) is established as a conserved Noether quantity, structurally similar to Chern-Simons invariants in its role, though explicitly derived from translational symmetry in hidden space rather than gauge curvature.

• Section 15 further suggests compactification of w (e.g. on S¹), offering quantized momentum modes and Berry-phase analogs—all framed within known topological field theory frameworks.

These features are not just justified—they’re simulated, testable, and falsifiable under current experimental setups.

✍️ Closing Statement

The updated manuscript transforms speculative motivation into rigorous derivation and empirical accessibility. Each formerly vague construct—w, φ(x), Q(w)—now has a defined role, analytical backbone, and measurable implication.

Revised_Paper_Based_On_Feedback-6.pdf

Edited July 4Jul 4 by waitaminute

On 6/30/2025 at 3:49 AM, waitaminute said:

🔍 1. It Describes the Process but Not the Principle Behind the Correlations

We are in agreement about the need of quantum mechanics to have an ontology. The "shut up and calculate" viewpoint is wholly unsatisfactory. However, we do disagree about the ontology itself, and maybe also about the relationship between mathematics and physics. The ontology I see is something like the many-worlds interpretation. I say "something like" because I haven't quite worked out the precise details, and I feel that the usual presentation of the many-worlds interpretation is problematic, although it is not clear to me if these problems extend to the original relative state formulation by Hugh Everett. Nevertheless, I do regard the wavefunction to be not so much about a particle, but about the entire reality in which the particle exists, including the entire history and future of the reality. Then the reality that includes the [math]|\psi_1\!\!>[/math] state also includes the [math]|\phi_1\!\!>[/math] state, and the reality that includes the [math]|\psi_2\!\!>[/math] state also includes the [math]|\phi_2\!\!>[/math] state. Thus, non-locality is taken care of without invoking any interaction between the two states. Note that the no-communication theorem says that there is nothing that can be done to the [math]|\psi\!\!>[/math] state that will affect the result of a measurement of the [math]|\phi\!\!>[/math] state. That is, although the correlation between distant states is strange, it is not strange enough to require interaction between the distant states.

I believe that the ontology of quantum mechanics needs to connect with the mathematics of quantum mechanics. The notion that there is an underlying physical mechanism that is not a part of the mathematics seems wrong to me.

On 6/30/2025 at 3:49 AM, waitaminute said:

🔍 2. It Avoids Bell Inequality Violations

I didn't discuss the violation of Bell's inequalities because I was discussing the nature of quantum entanglement. I wasn't trying to prove that quantum physics cannot be explained classically. Bell's inequalities aren't exactly about quantum entanglement. They are limitations on the properties of classical states. Their violation in quantum entanglement experiments demonstrate that the correlations that occur between quantum entangled states cannot be explained in classical terms. But this is more about the nature of quantum states than about entanglement. There is no mention of locality within Bell's inequalities. The notion of locality is merely to close a loophole in Bell's theorem concerning the possibility of communication between entangled distant states.

Thus, it seems to me that by making the distant states local via an extra dimension, you are claiming that it is necessary for the result of a measurement of one state to be communicated to the other state. The mathematics does not seem to point to this notion. The correlation between quantum entangled states is already a part of the multi-particle state and doesn't need to be reinforced by a communication of measured results between states.

[If the above LaTex doesn't render, refresh the page]

On 7/4/2025 at 4:14 PM, waitaminute said:

There have been some interesting arguments from others regarding this paper

What others? Do you have a link?

Posting arguments from others without citation is a copyright violation (unless the material is not copyrightable, but a reference is still required)

4 hours ago, KJW said:

Thus, it seems to me that by making the distant states local via an extra dimension, you are claiming that it is necessary for the result of a measurement of one state to be communicated to the other state. The mathematics does not seem to point to this notion. The correlation between quantum entangled states is already a part of the multi-particle state and doesn't need to be reinforced by a communication of measured results between states.

No, I'm stating that while the loopholes of local hidden variables were closed by the experimental work by John Clauser, Alain Aspect, and Anton Zeilinger, who won the Nobel prize for their work, the assumption for the closure of those loopholes is a 3+1D space-time. I demonstrate that with Feynman integrals, a 3+1+1D geometry could be hidden because that path is usually canceled out. Even the no-communication theorem assumes a 3+1D space-time. Extending quantum dynamics to an extra dimension through a quantum behavior isn't reaching, but examining, or exploring, hypothetical perspectives not approached before.

19 hours ago, waitaminute said:

On 7/6/2025 at 10:52 PM, KJW said:

Thus, it seems to me that by making the distant states local via an extra dimension, you are claiming that it is necessary for the result of a measurement of one state to be communicated to the other state. The mathematics does not seem to point to this notion. The correlation between quantum entangled states is already a part of the multi-particle state and doesn't need to be reinforced by a communication of measured results between states.

No, I'm stating that while the loopholes of local hidden variables were closed by the experimental work by John Clauser, Alain Aspect, and Anton Zeilinger, who won the Nobel prize for their work, the assumption for the closure of those loopholes is a 3+1D space-time. I demonstrate that with Feynman integrals, a 3+1+1D geometry could be hidden because that path is usually canceled out. Even the no-communication theorem assumes a 3+1D space-time. Extending quantum dynamics to an extra dimension through a quantum behavior isn't reaching, but examining, or exploring, hypothetical perspectives not approached before.

I need some clarification: Are you claiming that in the extra dimension, entangled particles are local where they are measured even though they may be very distant in 3+1D spacetime? If so, then you are assuming that there is a need for the communication of measured results between the particles.

19 hours ago, waitaminute said:

Even the no-communication theorem assumes a 3+1D space-time.

Where in the proof of the no-communication theorem does it indicate the assumption of 3+1D spacetime?

3 hours ago, KJW said:

I need some clarification: Are you claiming that in the extra dimension, entangled particles are local where they are measured even though they may be very distant in 3+1D spacetime? If so, then you are assuming that there is a need for the communication of measured results between the particles.

Where in the proof of the no-communication theorem does it indicate the assumption of 3+1D spacetime?

The point of the theorem is that there is no way to differentiate between a random effect or a deliberately encoded effect, which has nothing to do with quantum interference across a hyper-dimension, which would reveal the identical effect. Also, if you read the Wiki the explanations make references to Quantum Field theory, and terms like space-like, where it is linked to explanations of 3+1D spacetime.

Edited July 7Jul 7 by waitaminute

On 7/6/2025 at 11:06 AM, swansont said:

What others? Do you have a link?

Posting arguments from others without citation is a copyright violation (unless the material is not copyrightable, but a reference is still required)

Moderator Note

Let me be clear: this is not a comment that can continue to be ignored

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

Moderator Note

Let me be clear: this is not a comment that can continue to be ignored

The individuals who made criticisms of the manuscript wish to remain anonymous.

4 hours ago, waitaminute said:

The individuals who made criticisms of the manuscript wish to remain anonymous.

If they want to participate anonymously they are free to register accounts and do so. What you can do is present your arguments and cite any outside sources you use. Otherwise this is a violation of our rule on soapboxing (it does not promote open discussion, since we’re no able to engage with these people) and is arguably not compliant with our rule on posting in good faith.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

If they want to participate anonymously they are free to register accounts and do so. What you can do is present your arguments and cite any outside sources you use. Otherwise this is a violation of our rule on soapboxing (it does not promote open discussion, since we’re no able to engage with these people) and is arguably not compliant with our rule on posting in good faith.

Not sure what you're asking for, the post can't be edited. I posted updates to arguments I felt were relevant, since the manuscript wasn't rigorous enough in its original form to address the issues cited.

9 hours ago, waitaminute said:

Not sure what you're asking for, the post can't be edited. I posted updates to arguments I felt were relevant, since the manuscript wasn't rigorous enough in its original form to address the issues cited.

I am asking that if you post arguments from anyone from other than yourself that there be a citation/link to it. If you can’t do that, don’t post it.

On 6/27/2025 at 11:39 PM, waitaminute said:

Found this paper while searching for hyperdimensional solutions for non-locality:

https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Hyperdimensional_Biasing_Path_Integrals_A_Framework_for_Entanglement_and_Non-Locality_pdf/29304536?file=55588808

It does make sense that a hidden geometry could be at play, and it's usually destructive, which is why gauge phenomena can't move in a hyper direction. But, there are some other implications about non-locality, such as the entire universe is folded or crumpled up into a nanoscale hyperdimensional volume, or did I misunderstand the paper?

I see that on this thread you claim to have "found" this paper, by one Frank Lombard, while searching for something.

But in a later thread you reference another paper, by the same Frank Lombard, while claiming you wrote it.

Which is it and why the deceit?

Edited August 5Aug 5 by exchemist

10 hours ago, exchemist said:

I see that on this thread you claim to have "found" this paper, by one Frank Lombard, while searching for something.

But in a later thread you reference another paper, by the same Frank Lombard, while claiming you wrote it.

Which is it and why the deceit?

Why ask which is it, since you know its some kind of deceit? In any case I wanted to present the material as a 3rd party hoping to avoid the "Oh another want-be Scientist theory". I wrote both papers and both ideas I've had for quite sometime. With entanglement I was never comfortable with non-classical correlation explanation and the other was motivated by fractals, chaos theory, and information science and the common enigma of QM being incomprehensible. As I mentioned in that post such a view, by Chomsky himself, was stated about computationally defining natural language.

Edited August 5Aug 5 by waitaminute

36 minutes ago, waitaminute said:

Why ask which is it, since you know its some kind of deceit? In any case I wanted to present the material as a 3rd party hoping to avoid the "Oh another want-be Scientist theory". I wrote both papers and both ideas I've had for quite sometime. With entanglement I was never comfortable with non-classical correlation explanation and the other was motivated by fractals, chaos theory, and information science and the common enigma of QM being incomprehensible. As I mentioned in that post such a view, by Chomsky himself, was stated about computationally defining natural language.

So you thought your paper would get a better reception if you pretended it was written by a third party. I see. And you think that deception is OK, apparently.

49 minutes ago, exchemist said:

So you thought your paper would get a better reception if you pretended it was written by a third party. I see. And you think that deception is OK, apparently.

Absolutely, I have the right to be anonymous under the first Amendment's protection of free speech...Look it up....

4 minutes ago, waitaminute said:

Absolutely, I have the right to be anonymous under the first Amendment's protection of free speech...Look it up....

This is bullshit. The first amendment protects you from censorship or sanctions by the government. We aren’t a government entity. And the issue isn’t anonymity. If you wanted to be anonymous all you had to do was post the salient material (as required by the rules anyway) and not link to the paper that had your name on it.

This is, as far as I’m concerned, a serious issue. Rule 2.12 on posting in good faith includes misrepresentation, and you posted as if you were inquiring about someone else’s paper in a mainstream forum rather than posting in speculations as you should have. For that reason you avoided having to defend the argument because it was thought not to be yours.

On 6/28/2025 at 2:24 AM, waitaminute said:

where the probability waves usually cancel out the hyperdimensional path, but under the circumstances of entanglement, the amplitude waves reinforce the hyperdimensional path, allowing for the two particles to interact, where opposite state amplitudes of particles are favored.

Would you like to explain this statement demonstrating the difference between a probability wave the a quantum mechanical wave function ?

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

This is bullshit. The first amendment protects you from censorship or sanctions by the government. We aren’t a government entity. And the issue isn’t anonymity. If you wanted to be anonymous all you had to do was post the salient material (as required by the rules anyway) and not link to the paper that had your name on it.

This is, as far as I’m concerned, a serious issue. Rule 2.12 on posting in good faith includes misrepresentation, and you posted as if you were inquiring about someone else’s paper in a mainstream forum rather than posting in speculations as you should have. For that reason you avoided having to defend the argument because it was thought not to be yours.

No it is not....

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the right to speak anonymously is a crucial component of the First Amendment. Landmark cases have established that protecting anonymous speech shields individuals from potential retaliation, harassment, or social ostracism for expressing unpopular or controversial views.

In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995), the Supreme Court struck down a law that prohibited the distribution of anonymous campaign literature, stating that "anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority." This and other rulings protect various forms of anonymous expression, including:

• Political and Social Discourse: Publishing pamphlets, writing online posts, or speaking out on public issues without revealing your identity.

• Association: Joining groups or organizations without having your membership disclosed to the government, as established in cases involving the NAACP during the Civil Rights Movement.

Legal Means to Achieve Anonymity

Beyond the constitutional protection for anonymous speech, there are several legal mechanisms and practical methods you can use to maintain your anonymity in various contexts:

1. Pseudonyms (Pen Names): You can legally use a pseudonym or pen name for many purposes, such as writing, art, or online activities. There is no general legal requirement to register a pseudonym unless you are conducting business under that name, in which case you might need to file a "Doing Business As" (DBA) or fictitious business name statement with your state or county.

2. Anonymous LLCs: Several states, including Delaware, New Mexico, and Wyoming, have laws that allow for the formation of "anonymous LLCs." In these states, the public records of the company do not need to disclose the names of the owners (members) or managers. This can be a useful tool for entrepreneurs, investors, and property owners who wish to keep their business affairs private. However, this anonymity is not absolute; law enforcement and the IRS can still access ownership information through legal processes.

3. "John Doe" or "Jane Doe" Lawsuits: The legal system provides a mechanism for filing or defending a lawsuit without revealing one's name. A "John Doe" or "Jane Doe" lawsuit can be initiated against an unknown individual, allowing the plaintiff to use the discovery process to identify the person. Conversely, individuals with a legitimate need for privacy (e.g., victims of sexual assault or whistleblowers) can petition the court to proceed with a case using a pseudonym.

4. Digital Privacy Tools: The use of virtual private networks (VPNs), encrypted messaging apps, and other privacy-enhancing technologies is generally legal and can help you maintain anonymity online.

Limitations and Exceptions to Anonymity

The right to be anonymous is not absolute and can be curtailed in several situations where there is a compelling government interest:

• Criminal Activity: Anonymity does not protect you from investigation and prosecution for criminal acts. Law enforcement can obtain court orders to compel internet service providers, social media companies, and other entities to reveal the identity of individuals engaged in illegal activities online.

• Defamation and Harassment: You can be held liable for defamatory or harassing statements made anonymously. Victims of online defamation can file a "John Doe" lawsuit to uncover the identity of the anonymous poster and seek damages.

• Campaign Finance: While anonymous political speech is protected, campaign finance laws require the disclosure of donors to political campaigns to ensure transparency and prevent corruption.

• Police Stops: In what are known as "stop and identify" states, you are legally required to provide your name to a police officer during a lawful stop. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of such laws in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004).

• Travel and Official Documents: You are required to use your legal name on government-issued identification, for air travel (as mandated by the REAL ID Act), and on official documents like contracts and tax filings.

In conclusion, while the United States does not provide a blanket right to anonymity, it offers robust protection for anonymous speech and various legal tools to help you maintain your privacy. However, this right is subject to important limitations, particularly when it conflicts with law enforcement, the safety of others, and legal transparency requirements.

6 minutes ago, waitaminute said:

In conclusion, while the United States does not provide a blanket right to anonymity

Once again, that’s between you and the United States, i.e. the government.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png

(BTW, grabbing an argument from a chatbot AI isn’t going to help your case)

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

Would you like to explain this statement demonstrating the difference between a probability wave the a quantum mechanical wave function ?

The distinction between a probability wave and a quantum mechanical wave function is central to understanding the model presented.

• A quantum mechanical wave function, typically denoted as Ψ(x), is a complex-valued function whose squared modulus |Ψ(x)|² gives the probability density of finding a particle at position x. It evolves according to the Schrödinger equation (or path integrals in Feynman’s formulation) and captures the superposition and interference of all possible paths a system might take. It is foundational in standard quantum theory.

• In contrast, a probability wave, as used in this paper, refers to the effective modulation of probability amplitudes due to symbolic or informational curvature in an extended (3+1+1)D configuration space. Here, the probability wave emerges from biasing the path integral using a field ϕ(x) that reflects entropic gradients or Fisher information geometry. This bias modifies the constructive or destructive interference patterns over paths, effectively shaping the outcome probabilities.

  Specifically, the probability wave is not an independent ontological object like Ψ(x), but rather a projection of modified amplitudes in the presence of the hyper-dimensional bias field. It behaves more like an emergent or derived interference profile resulting from symbolic curvature, as seen in Eq. (33):

• Aϵ[x(t)]≈A0[x(t)]⋅exp(iϵ∫ϕ(x(t))w˙(t)dt)

This formulation retains the unitary structure of quantum mechanics (see Sections 9.1–9.3) but introduces a causal mechanism for entanglement via an informationally modulated interference landscape—which is what I refer to as the probability wave in contrast to the traditional wave function.

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Once again, that’s between you and the United States, i.e. the government.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png

(BTW, grabbing an argument from a chatbot AI isn’t going to help your case)

I never said you had to listen to it, but you try to rationalize your obvious error with a sensational response...

Edited August 5Aug 5 by waitaminute

Just now, waitaminute said:

I never said you had to listen to it, but you try to rationalize your obvious error with a sensational response...

Unfortunately for them, the Moderators have to listen to it in order to assess it.

You don't have to like their response, but you have to abide by it on this site, just as you have to abide by a supreme court decision in the United States, whether you like that or not.

Just now, waitaminute said:

The distinction between a probability wave and a quantum mechanical wave function is central to understanding the model presented.

• A quantum mechanical wave function, typically denoted as Ψ(x), is a complex-valued function whose squared modulus |Ψ(x)|² gives the probability density of finding a particle at position x. It evolves according to the Schrödinger equation (or path integrals in Feynman’s formulation) and captures the superposition and interference of all possible paths a system might take. It is foundational in standard quantum theory.

• In contrast, a probability wave, as used in this paper, refers to the effective modulation of probability amplitudes due to symbolic or informational curvature in an extended (3+1+1)D configuration space. Here, the probability wave emerges from biasing the path integral using a field ϕ(x) that reflects entropic gradients or Fisher information geometry. This bias modifies the constructive or destructive interference patterns over paths, effectively shaping the outcome probabilities.

  Specifically, the probability wave is not an independent ontological object like Ψ(x), but rather a projection of modified amplitudes in the presence of the hyper-dimensional bias field. It behaves more like an emergent or derived interference profile resulting from symbolic curvature, as seen in Eq. (33):

• Aϵ[x(t)]≈A0[x(t)]⋅exp(iϵ∫ϕ(x(t))w˙(t)dt)

This formulation retains the unitary structure of quantum mechanics (see Sections 9.1–9.3) but introduces a causal mechanism for entanglement via an informationally modulated interference landscape—which is what I refer to as the probability wave in contrast to the traditional wave function.

Thank you for this AI generated nonsense.

15 hours ago, waitaminute said:

I never said you had to listen to it, but you try to rationalize your obvious error with a sensational response...

A reasonable person would have said, "Sorry, I was wrong about my first amendment rights, and thanks for correcting me." You? You double down on ignorance and admonish swansont for an "obvious error". You have more to overcome than your lack of science knowledge. You're your own biggest obstacle to learning.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Unfortunately for them, the Moderators have to listen to it in order to assess it.

You don't have to like their response, but you have to abide by it on this site, just as you have to abide by a supreme court decision in the United States, whether you like that or not.

Thank you for this AI generated nonsense.

That changes nothing about the ethical choice to express oneself anonymously, and true, this is their site, but the site is, by default, through the use of anonymous handles, facilitating anonymity.

My impression, since you called the response to your question nonsense, is that you didn't understand it....

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

A reasonable person would have said, "Sorry, I was wrong about my first amendment rights, and thanks for correcting me." You? You double down on ignorance and admonish swansont for an "obvious error". You have more to overcome than your lack of science knowledge. You're your own biggest obstacle to learning.

You obviously missed a point in my response to swansont:

In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995), the Supreme Court struck down a law that prohibited the distribution of anonymous campaign literature, stating that "anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."