Black Harvard Professor and The Economist 15 year study

[spurraider21]

yeah by Crayola in another thread.

i dont know that he claimed occams razor was definitive proof, though

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i dont know that he claimed occams razor was definitive proof, though

The simplest explanation is the best explanation. The simplest explanation here is that you don't know what reductio ad absurdum is since you didn't give the proper definition. Screaming and waving your hands won't cover that up. Maybe you should pay more attention to your wiki reading next time.

Yeah he did. It's entertaining to because the extent of Counselor Crayola's arguments beyond occam's razor has been to try and apply my arguments to me as opposed to any original construction.

[pgardn]

Now you're building strawmen. How droll. And you still haven't caught up.

Oh I would want to extricate myself from your muddy positions stated as well. Definitely. Run while you can.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh I would want to extricate your positions stated as well. Definitely. Run while you can.

False characterizations. Youre sure on a roll. If you want to have story time have at it but don't expect me to waste much time, simpleton.

[pgardn]

False characterizations. Youre sure on a roll. If you want to have story time have at it but don't expect me to waste much time, simpleton.

This is what happens when you step into something you should not have.
Of course you want out.

False characterizations:
"You play cavalier with Newton"
Holy . You are also a hypocrite.

[vy65]

Yeah he did. It's entertaining to because the extent of Counselor Crayola's arguments beyond occam's razor has been to try and apply my arguments to me as opposed to any original construction.

What the does "definitive proof" even mean? You had no idea what you were talking about when you tried to explain what reductio ad absurdum meant and the simplest explanation for your word- vomit posts is the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about. Saying like "definitive proof" is kinda the point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What the does "definitive proof" even mean? You had no idea what you were talking about when you tried to explain what reductio ad absurdum meant and the simplest explanation for your word- vomit posts is the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about. Saying like "definitive proof" is kinda the point.

Does it require a singular reason to discredit an entire argument or not? Was the argument I called RAA actually RAA?

Since we both know it does and it was, you can go and off now.

Is that what you do in your briefs? Just assert what you want and then not cite any logic or relevant case law like a dumb , Crayola?

Going back to occam's razor. What a dumb

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is what happens when you step into something you should not have.
Of course you want out.

False characterizations:
"You play cavalier with Newton"
Holy . You are also a hypocrite.

So says teh one interjecting himself into another's argument.

You were responding to my posts like I was criticizing Newton making excuses and all the like. It was pretty dumb frankly.

[pgardn]

So says teh one interjecting himself into another's argument.

You were responding to my posts like I was criticizing Newton making excuses and all the like. It was pretty dumb frankly.

If that's how you took it reread my post post about science at that time.
People tend to think what is going on in their time as difficult. When you look back it's silly to look at the past like it's easy stuff. At the time, The methodology used to come up with F ~ mM/r^2 was hardly obvious.

You don't know the whole of science well it's pretty clear. Anyone can be an expert at googling details of very difficult math.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If that's how you took it reread my post post about science at that time.
People tend to think what is going on in their time as difficult. When you look back it's silly to look at the past like it's easy stuff. At the time, The methodology used to come up with F ~ mM/r^2 was hardly obvious.

You don't know the whole of science well it's pretty clear. Anyone can be an expert at googling details of very difficult math.

Who cares? I was discussing in the context of occam's razor. Trying to justify why it was simpler is irrelevant. It's been two days now and you still don't get it.

[pgardn]

Who cares? I was discussing in the context of occam's razor. Trying to justify why it was simpler is irrelevant. It's been two days now and you still don't get it.

Yes and you have already confirmed you do not understand that either. For 2 days.

Cavalier with Newton... You still have no idea what you are writing about.

[pgardn]

You are so disingenuous it's amazing. No one ever claimed you were denigrating Newton in any way. You are attempting to redirect and it's painfully obvious. I'm playing cavalier with Newton, this is what you stated and it's just wordy garbage.

Occams razor gets rid of extraneous postulates rather than simplify. In QM we do exactly this using probability. Just because the methods of understanding are difficult does not mean Occam's razor has somehow been bypassed. The elegance is the idea of a range of possible states, that is in itself not extraneous or bringing in unnecessary information.

You read some thought somewhere on the Internet and attempt to distort. What a piece of work. And then you claim I need to catch up. You know this is BS. If you understand anything about science you must know this.

Read again.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Read again.

And how does it achieve that, googleboy? And what relevance does that have other than pedantic rambling?

[pgardn]

And how does it achieve that, googleboy? And what relevance does that have other than pedantic rambling?

Parroting again. Now you can't even stay creative with your insults.

By using the simplicity of probability to come up with a range of possible answers fool. You throw out impossibilities and recognize Improbabilities. Just because the math is tedious and the outcomes not easily explained physically does not mean this somehow jumps Occam's razor. Wave equations are not new and neither is field theory. None of this upsets Occam's razor, its good modeling. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works.

And You started the rambling with your obtuse "cavalier with Newton" idiocy.

[pgardn]

Quit that . You said I was playing cavalier with Newton. So you rephrase it to mean you are not criticizing Newton. Why do you pull this ?

Caught up yet? Seriously...

You really think I don't get it.

From what I can tell you are one of the people who walks into a room and yells "physics, calculus, quantum mechanics" just because a majority of people don't find these things interesting or were taught poorly in the first place. I think I could take 90% of the people on this board and take them slowly though science starting with physics and work up to some biological phenomena. I think I could get them to understand why biological systems only use very discrete energy levels to sense the world around them thus giving them a feel for how little we can understand without physical analogy. They would understand more than you in your quantum world. Because you happen to be concentrating on that right now hardly makes you an expert in anything useful. This would be more like an idiot savant stemming off one specific area of human endeavor.

And Just because one goes through a subject quickly or slowly does not necessarily indicate how profoundly they understand. You can use your Hibbert fields to impress people with a way to more usefully express wave functions, But the physical reality of what all this means is much more important. One can easily illustrate how a good algebra background makes slightly complex calculus doable, but the central idea of limits are not appreciated in differentiation or integration as it applies to some physical reality. This is the real beauty. Not getting a hard on for some very specific part of math that allows you to do other math.

I bet I could give find a version of a first year physics in HS as given by the new introductary AP1 exam and you would fail to make a good score. (A colleague told me it was more difficult than the calculus based physics because it dealt with ideas with much less math and more with concepts; his son was not one of the 4% nationwide who got a 5) Probably because you have not done it in a while. And this would make you stupid? Because it covers Newtonian mechanics and you are way, way beyond that.

So maybe I go and intensely study topology and come back and insult people on a basketball board. That would make me feel so good.

Enough already. I hope the majority of the board just skips all this drivel, I would.

And again.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Parroting again. Now you can't even stay creative with your insults.

By using the simplicity of probability to come up with a range of possible answers fool. You throw out impossibilities and recognize Improbabilities. Just because the math is tedious and the outcomes not easily explained physically does not mean this somehow jumps Occam's razor. Wave equations are not new and neither is field theory. None of this upsets Occam's razor, its good modeling. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works.

And You started the rambling with your obtuse "cavalier with Newton" idiocy.

Occam's razor is still not a method for proving something in and of itself, dimwit. Like I said, who cares? that is what I was arguing not your stream of strawmen.

I never said occam's razor had no use. Now youre defending it's honor. The desperation is amusing.

[pgardn]

Occam's razor is still not a method for proving something in and of itself, dimwit. Like I said, who cares? that is what I was arguing not your stream of strawmen?

I never said occam's razor had no use. Now youre defending it's honor. The desperation is amusing.

I never said it was head.

[pgardn]

You are so disingenuous it's amazing. No one ever claimed you were denigrating Newton in any way. You are attempting to redirect and it's painfully obvious. I'm playing cavalier with Newton, this is what you stated and it's just wordy garbage.

Occam's razor gets rid of extraneous postulates rather than simplify. In QM we do exactly this using probability. Just because the methods of understanding are difficult does not mean Occam's razor has somehow been bypassed. The elegance is the idea of a range of possible states, that is in itself not extraneous or bringing in unnecessary information.

You read some thought somewhere on the Internet and attempt to distort. What a piece of work. And then you claim I need to catch up. You know this is BS. If you understand anything about science you must know this.

And again.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I never said it was head.

Then why are you arguing? Still haven't caught up I see. Crayola did say that.

You guys coming in trying to prove any single point of mine wrong trying to prove yourself are laughable.

[pgardn]

Then why are you arguing? Still haven't caught up I see. Crayola did.

You guys coming in trying to prove any single point of mine wrong trying to prove yourself are laughable.

You are such a blatant intellectual fraud.

You don't understand the very basics of science and you definitely don't know the history behind this stuff.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And again.

And again so what?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are such a blatant intellectual fraud.

So says the guy who has no clue what my argument actually was.

[pgardn]

So says the guy who has no clue what my argument actually was.

You change your arguments when cornered.
And then change what is said back to you.

You are a fraud.

[pgardn]

Again I'm not criticizing Newton. He was avante garde for his time. Nonetheless, classical mechanics is much simpler than quantum mechanics. This is not a value judgment; it's a statement of fact.

The argument is regarding Occam's razor which states that the simplest explanation is the best. In the case of physics that is not the case. Caught up yet?

No one ever said you were.
AGAIN.

And your understanding of physics and Occam's razor are misunderstandings.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No one ever said you were.
AGAIN.

And your understanding of physics and Occam's razor are misunderstandings.

Be specific. All I've seen are strawmen that I have never once claimed. The one thing I did claim you don't dispute.