PIT2 said:
I dont. I tried reading his thing but i couldnt.
It's not consistent and it's not comprehensible even when you do understand the rather wordy expressions he seems to get off on using, if you ask me this is meant to be appreciated only for it's tendency to be expansive, but not explicit.
Essentially what it says is that he has invented a new language(Self-Configuring Self-Processing Langauge or SCSPL) That is not only self referential but is capable of self amendment and self evolution, that can explain the development of nature in terms of itself(no explanation of how is given) He says pretty much the same thing five times, adding some obscure quantum reference which is not explained enough to make any sense of it.
At this point he ties in his language with the many states of the quantum, but does little to explain how this happens, then goes on to explain how nature itself is a means to explain his system, but since he never really explains his system, this is a sort of circular argument and leaves you with no insight into his own language or how exactly it would fit into a natural physical picture.
Simultaneously he dismisses science and maths as being old or not able to cope with the new language, but does little to explain why he is making this assumption or why his picture is better.
In other words,I think he's indulging in sophistry or trying to trick or mislead by making very vague and non correlative statements and using very overly wordy phrases.
As I said he says much but imparts nothing, even if you do grasp what he is saying it's impossible to see where he derives such assumptions from, or even what point he is trying to make if any, other than he's found out a new way of talking about reality that makes no coherent sense.
I'll maybe try and comprehend the next 4 pages later, if I work out if it is worth the effort :lol:
EDIT:
I then went on to try and make sense of his explanations, and failed miserably, I obviously am not intelligent enough to understand his reasoning, but then there are no examples here that I can make head nor tale of? Usually he makes an assertion and then holds it true without explaining why? As if somehow we're supposed to understand why there must be intrinsic causality but without an external causation or vice a versa, care to give us an analogy, apparently not.
It's bewilderingly unclear, and to my mind completely incomprehensible, perhaps someone with a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics and philosophy can take a look, but I personally could get little out of it, other than a bemusing array of self contained arguments that had no explanation other than obscure references.
He's either a genius beyond a mere mortals understanding, or more likely he's simply disappeared into a reality no one else is meant to fathom, nor in fact will ever be able to as it simply does not make sense
And the worst part is he never tries to explain his own language and how it would fit into his argument? It's almost like he's worried by revealing the cogs and bolts, it would uncover his arguments as flimsy.
Reminds me of The Wizard of OZ, all style and no substance.
