Comment by blueprint | Hacker News Reader

Comment by blueprint | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Since you seem like a sensible person, I'll tell you what I have to deliver.

This world exists according to a singular, fundamental principle which is that a thing that comes into existence once makes results on the basis of what is inside of itself from the past, and makes itself exist continuously by repeating its activities endlessly. A thing's very activities become the cause through which it makes itself come into being in the future.

So, seeing the world from this principle, we can find two or three laws: The law of cause and effect, and the law of existing by changing through activities (repetition). Rather than coming up with theory and finding evidence, we can take any sample from the entire world and verify this theory as their method of operation.

(If you're wondering about the question of infinitely regressing this statement to the origin of the world, I can say that the same explanation applies. The world itself also repeats (ends and begins again) periodically and also displays the entire process of evolution according to the law of cause and effect.)

When people really understand this principle and see things in the world on the principle, they come to realize the fundamental problem in physics is gravity. People don't really understand what general relativity means. It's sort of like how most people don't know that Schrödinger was joking when he talked about not knowing if the cat would be alive or dead. That's why physics has gone on a massive detour over the last 100 years. Unless physicists solve the problem of gravity, humanity won't be able to recognize the cause of and survive through the collapse of the Earth's ecosystem. Things are more serious than people realize - even after all these years. It sounds fantastical to people who haven't confirmed, but what I point out here is undeniable after confirmation of facts. So, from one perspective, it's as if physicists don't have the willpower or courage to admit the reality of the situation today, which is what fundamentally prevents them from pursuing the way to confirm about gravity - it would result in them confronting today's reality. Realistically, it's a hard burden for anyone to bear. That's one of the reasons why a person who says what I say here is rarely welcomed.

"...a thing that comes into existence once makes results on the basis of what is inside of itself from the past, and makes itself exist continuously by repeating its activities endlessly. A thing's very activities become the cause through which it makes itself come into being in the future."

Are you saying that a thing exists before it comes into existence?

No. It means that the world contains the meaning, like an encoding, for something that can come into existence according to the law of cause and effect.

Downvotes prove my point. ;) People who told the truth to awaken humanity were always treated terribly. Anyone who is able to claim differently has never studied the most fundamental and important aspects of human history and can be confirmed to be a person who isn't actually able to understand the very truth.

> Downvotes prove my point.

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Yeah, maybe you're getting downvoted because the sheeple here can't cope with the audacity of your message. But maybe, just maybe, you're getting downvoted for making grandiose claims with nothing to back them up.

You've suggested that I made a claim with nothing to back it up. I challenge you to name just one thing from what I said that you can show has no proof.

Funny enough, the article itself was about how physicists cannot find the proof to sustain their development of further theory. Doesn't it seem even slightly suspicious to you that the person who points out that fact about those scientists is being accused of the very thing they do?

You intimate that I do the same kinds of things as a clown. The only reason you can suggest that is that you exclude everything I said aside from a few words. That's quite obviously a deception tactic and if you included actual proof in your own words, you would have had to reference the rest of my words. But you can't do that because it won't support your point.

In fact, if you can disprove anything I said, I'll wire you all of my money immediately. Furthermore, if you can show that anything I've said cannot be verified, I'll do the same. Or if you prefer, you can take my head. But I'm quite certain that will never happen.

By the way, your reaction is also the proof of what I say. The problem is you don't understand what I said. It would be better to admit that instead of attacking one of the people who can solve your questions.

People like you are toxic, and cannot be argued with.

The only things you know are that you (a) can't disprove what I said but that (b) you also don't find enough through which to prove it. The latter can be caused by me spouting nonsense, but it can also be caused by you not understanding what I said well enough. Nevertheless, you make judgements and indictments without admitting that you don't actually have any intention to (a) check and improve your understanding of what I said and (b) check the veracity of what I said.

In other words, you're acting on the basis of what you do not know and informing others of your feelings. That tells me all I need to know about your ability to judge toxicity from teaching. It's never easy for people to learn something new. But you are only aware of how it feels to you, and you don't have the ability to distinguish whether it makes you change for the better or worse.

> I challenge you to name just one thing from what I said that you can show has no proof.

Do you mean you want me to say you haven't proved it here (which is obvious, you proved nothing), or that you don't have proof you aren't showing us?

I can't show you don't have a hidden proof. You can't show I don't have a unicorn.

The quote about clowns he gave you is a general quote. basically, just because people disagree with you / call you a fool / downvote you doesn't make you right. Sometimes it means you are right, but more often it means you are wrong.

When you say you will wire me all your money if I can prove anything you said wrong, what would convince you something you said was wrong?

I can imagine what a disproof of Newtown's laws of physics, or quantum mechanics, or general relativity wrong would look like. These are well-defined mathematical models, so just show something in the real world not following those mathematical rules. I'm not sure how I could prove your system is "wrong", as it doesn't predict anything.

I can use Newtown's laws to predict how my car behaves. I can use quantum physics to predict how my CPU will behave. I can use general relativity to predict mercury's orbit. What does your system allow me to predict accurately?

Like I said, it explains the entire world of phenomena. I can say you didn't understand my explanation if you assert it makes no predictive claims.

Are you open-minded enough to consider places where you're mistaken? You contradict yourself a few times. This is not intended as ad hominem but as an indicator that you may want to reconsider whether your judgement can be correct. One example of a few: In the beginning of your comment you said that someone calling me a fool doesn't make me right. Agreed. But you contradict yourself by saying that it does sometimes make me right. That's definitely not true.

I'm going to skip replying to the rest of what you said because I know it was not based on having understood what I said. I'm ready to weather the obvious conclusion you're going to draw from that.

Honestly, if you want people to take your claims seriously, you are going to have to get better at explaining them.

I clearly am going to decide you are talking nonsense, as you suggest, as you have still never said anything understandable. You say "you didn't understand my explanation if you assert it makes no predictive claims.".

Why don't you just make a predictive claim that could be tested?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com