@Ya’akov
Please allow me to reiterate, that I have no intention to insult or discredit You in any way.
But, the "apparency", of at least certain parts of your rebuttal,
have the "look & feel" of an "enraged-rambling-rant".
( possibly I've stirred-up a subject that involves a large amount of frustration for You )

I would not have been so direct and blunt,
if I didn't think that You were an extremely intelligent person.
But I would venture to say that there are probably only 4 or 5 people, ( regulars on these Forums ),
who have the fortitude to actually make it through some of these long,
and sometimes contorted sentences, filled with un-necessarily unusual-words, adjectives,
qualifiers, and sentence structures, etc..
( it has occurred to me that colloquial-American-English may not be your first language )

I like to keep in mind that possibly lesser educated people may benefit tremendously from this discussion,
and so, I make an attempt to keep the vocabulary only as "unusual" as is necessary to accurately
convey the intention of each individual statement.
I have no one that I wish to impress, I would hope that You don't either.

When any one reads un-necessarily complex sentence structures,
with many unusual, or obscure, words,
it literally puts them to sleep.
I have learned methods to alleviate this problem, and how to insure accurate comprehension,
but most people just stop reading, lose interest, and fade-out,
and when that happens, You have effectively accomplished nothing.
( except possibly relieving some personal stress, which can be a very valuable thing )

Some of your responses give the apparency of "Scanning", or "Speed-Reading".
I say this because much of your response was regarding
subjects, or points, previously and specifically "qualified" by me, sometimes in 2 or more contexts,
and your responses, ( which have contained no quotes by me ),
leads me to believe that You may have many preconceived notions,
regarding the general-subjects, or intents, of my statements,
which you may be erroneously, and blindly, applying to my statements,
apparently without giving them the analysis they deserve.

I NEVER make a "statement" that has not been rigorously tested, and repeatedly verified,
to the point where it starts to become an absurdity.
And, I purposefully don't "hang-out" in any "Echo-Chambers".
I am not looking for "Agreement", I'm simply trying to do something constructive
with my extensive and broad experience base before my body quits working.

I fully realize that at least ~15% of the World's population has a dangerously low I.Q.,
and roughly ~30% of the population is so stressed-out, or drugged, that they can't think-straight,
and half of the population has an I.Q. of less than 100, which is a very low hurdle to jump over,
and that ~75% of them actually believe the mindless-crap that they stare at on the Evening-News.
But things are starting to change very fast now, so get ready.

The statements that I make are based on specific part-time research and verification
of the subjects for ~40-years, some much longer than that, while possessing a ~153-I.Q..
Please entertain the possibility that there could be some valuable truths in them.

I realize that everybody needs a Rock, or a "Stable-Datum", that helps to keep them sane.
These good-ole "Rocks" are beginning to crumble.
You'll be much better-off embracing this phenomenon.
If You ignore it, your "landing" will be much more abrupt, and un-pleasant.

My intention was to continue to address the remaining statements in your original post,
unfortunately, it appears that that task has become hopelessly buried in far too many words.
It's no longer worth my time and effort.

If specific quotes or questions are subsequently presented, I welcome them,
and will be happy to address them.
.
.
.

 

@Ya’akov
Please allow me to reiterate, that I have no intention to insult or discredit You in any way.
But, the "apparency", of at least certain parts of your rebuttal,
have the "look & feel" of an "enraged-rambling-rant".
( possibly I've stirred-up a subject that involves a large amount of frustration for You )

I would not have been so direct and blunt,
if I didn't think that You were an extremely intelligent person.
But I would venture to say that there are probably only 4 or 5 people, ( regulars on these Forums ),
who have the fortitude to actually make it through some of these long,
and sometimes contorted sentences, filled with un-necessarily unusual-words, adjectives,
qualifiers, and sentence structures, etc..
( it has occurred to me that colloquial-American-English may not be your first language )

I like to keep in mind that possibly lesser educated people may benefit tremendously from this discussion,
and so, I make an attempt to keep the vocabulary only as "unusual" as is necessary to accurately
convey the intention of each individual statement.
I have no one that I wish to impress, I would hope that You don't either.

When any one reads un-necessarily complex sentence structures,
with many unusual, or obscure, words,
it literally puts them to sleep.
I have learned methods to alleviate this problem, and how to insure accurate comprehension,
but most people just stop reading, lose interest, and fade-out,
and when that happens, You have effectively accomplished nothing.
( except possibly relieving some personal stress, which can be a very valuable thing )

Just a bit of (I hope)-constructive criticism, if even that; more of an observation, but...
While you both get stuck in never-never-loops with verbose=True, I do less skimming on Yaakov's posts than I do on yours.
That probably reflects more on me than it does on either of you. There are biases involved as with anything else, and I'm sure some of mine I'm not even aware of. But what I am aware of is that your books (in my totally subjective opinion) seem to have a lower return on my investment of time. When I read your posts I have to stop and re-read too frequently, unsure what the hell I just read, wonder where you're going with things and if you're ever going to tie it all together, and most frustratingly, wonder what you're trying to say without actually saying it.
There is a high probability that I'm just not intelligent enough to comprehend what you're saying, and that's fine by me, but you seemed interested in effectively conveying points to people across a wider spectrum of education, fluency, and attention spans, so I thought I might let you know that there is room for improvement.
Big words I can look up easily. Big ideas never plainly stated are more challenging.

 

Just a bit of (I hope)-constructive criticism, if even that; more of an observation, but...
While you both get stuck in never-never-loops with verbose=True, I do less skimming on Yaakov's posts than I do on yours.
That probably reflects more on me than it does on either of you. There are biases involved as with anything else, and I'm sure some of mine I'm not even aware of. But what I am aware of is that your books (in my totally subjective opinion) seem to have a lower return on my investment of time. When I read your posts I have to stop and re-read too frequently, unsure what the hell I just read, wonder where you're going with things and if you're ever going to tie it all together, and most frustratingly, wonder what you're trying to say without actually saying it.
There is a high probability that I'm just not intelligent enough to comprehend what you're saying, and that's fine by me, but you seemed interested in effectively conveying points to people across a wider spectrum of education, fluency, and attention spans, so I thought I might let you know that there is room for improvement.
Big words I can look up easily. Big ideas never plainly stated are more challenging.

.
I will admit it ........
I'm "Gun-Shy".
I have attempted, sometimes successfully, sometimes not,
to develop a manner of presenting subjects,
that will tend to get people to think, and do their own research,
rather than ....... " You must believe me, I know what I'm talking about".

This "may" actually be reasonably effective, ( in theory ),
but there is no way to reliably gauge the results.
The idiots, and the passionate people, always have loud mouths and like to talk (write) incessantly,
while ( in my estimation only ) the more intelligent and thoughtful people just watch and "lurk",
remaining quiet with their thoughts on the particular subject.
I could name one particularly significant source of Wisdom and Scientific-Research
that has been so vilified, and demonized, as to cause anyone reading the post to immediately
start hurling invalidations, and colorful language, and ad-hominem attacks,
and a whole lot of "Well everybody knows that ..........".
There is an excellent reason why an organization would have
so many millions of dollars spent demonizing it, continuously, for over 75-years, non-stop.
It steps on the toes of the "Powers that be",
which are far more corrupt, and actually far more more EVIL, than anyone could possibly imagine.

Just the fact that a situation as profound as this could exist, is more than most people can deal with.
The result is normally a lot of noise, and/or, ostracism and silence.

Of course this is far from the only source of information that i use,
but for a basic "grounding" in how Life works, it has no peers.

This unfortunate scenario gets played out when quoting many
other sources which are "not officially approved" by "The Authorities",
so leaving people with a bunch of open questions is effective on 2 fronts,
first, I'm not telling anyone that the must believe anything, and second,
when people find answers on their own, they generally carry
more weight than, "this guy on the Internet said ......".

So, good or bad,
I tend to just make statements that provoke questions, or
just present information in the form of a question.

Far too many people want to judge the validity of a source of information
based on the general public "reputation" of that source.
This is an absolutely terrible way to validate anything.

Everybody wants their education or "News" to be "spoon-fed" to them,
it doesn't work that way .........
You have to dig and sort and validate and verify, and analyse, and vet, over and over and over again,
and most people are too busy just trying to "keep their heads above water" and "make ends meet"
to put in the required time and effort.

Sorry, but the situation sucks.
The entire population of the planet has been systematically, heavily-brainwashed.
This is not by "accident", or "Human-Nature", it's quite malicious and nefarious.
This situation is in the process of being rectified.

It will have to suffice to say that, if You want to really understand the "Big-Picture",
You have to have the thought that things don't seem quite right to You,
and You must be willing to sift through hours of BS just to get small nuggets
of valuable information that You can actually rely on and use.
And then You will be astounded to find that it will be from
ordinary people who, themselves, have been digging for years or even decades.

I could simply post-up a list of ~40 YouTube and Rumble-Channels,
but that would probably result in 4 or 5 foolish people burying it in a wave negative noise.

Occasionally I do get somewhat discouraged, but there may be one lurker out there
in cyber-space that grabs one ( or 10 ) of these ideas and runs with it.

I do much better in person,
it's somewhat arduous to have a complex conversation in writing.

Anyone interested in a YouTube or Rumble Video-Channel list just PM me.
It won't result in a comprehensive education, but it's certainly a good place to start.

Very little of what You think You know about the World is actually true and accurate.
"The-Matrix" movies are just heavily-embellished, and excessively-dramatized Documentaries.
( this is just 2 movies out of many others that are currently playing-out in real Life )
We are currently enduring World-War-3, but it is a Propaganda-War, with very few Bombs or Bullets.
There will be no more "Bomb & Bullet" Wars.
The Earth is not "Flat", but it was invaded/infiltrated several thousand years ago.
If You are a Bible-person, ( which I am not particularly ),
the Bible lays out the entire current situation in parable-form, sometimes in astonishing-detail.
No one can give accurate dates and times, but more and more predicted events continue to occur.

Is any of this worth your time ?, or, are You quite confident that it's just a bunch of "Hog-Wash".
.
.
.

 

@Ya’akov
Please allow me to reiterate, that I have no intention to insult or discredit You in any way.
But, the "apparency", of at least certain parts of your rebuttal,
have the "look & feel" of an "enraged-rambling-rant".
( possibly I've stirred-up a subject that involves a large amount of frustration for You )

Thank you for qualifying your response but it does nothing to change that you do not address what I say and instead make a veiled ad hominem attack, which appears to be your only option. If you understand what I have written you show no sign of it. You simply repeat the same thing “You just don’t understand” and “I could give you evidence, but…”.

I will not respond further to this thread because you have made no substantive reply, so there is no point in continuing..

 

Just a bit of (I hope)-constructive criticism, if even that; more of an observation, but...
While you both get stuck in never-never-loops with verbose=True,

If you don’t want to read my posts, I am not bothered—but I am not just adding words as evidence of my position, I am writing something very specific which always requires more words. Were I to write with fewer words there would be more ambiguity, and in this case I don’t want to leave my real intentions in doubt at all.

I did try to include a way to summarize it, but as I said, it doesn’t bother me if you skip my posts, I am not evangelizing or looking for approval. Thanks for reading them at all, I appreciate interest when it is there.

 

If you don’t want to read my posts, I am not bothered—but I am not just adding words as evidence of my position, I am writing something very specific which always requires more words. We’re I to write with fewer words there would be more ambiguity,, and in this case I don’t want to leave my real intentions in doubt at all.

I did try to include a way to summarize it, but as I said, it doesn’t bother me if you skip my posts, I am not evangelizing or looking for approval. Thanks for reading them at all, I appreciate interest when it is there.

You are correct. The "never-never-loops" part of my post wasn't really fair; you don't really repeat yourself, and you really are just saying something very specific with all the words required to completely (ambiguity < 0.00001836) express the idea.
As I said, this has more to do with me than either of you, and, as I said, I skim your posts less than others*. I wish I had more time to read what you write and express my own thoughts with even a modest fraction of the same clarity. But alas, I'm usually reading at a red light, a gas pump, or on the commode. Many of your posts I can't even finish reading over a burger, much less issue the kind of reply they deserve.

EDIT: "I skim your posts less than others" meaning, I actually read them, more often.

 

You are correct. The "never-never-loops" part of my post wasn't really fair; you don't really repeat yourself, and you really are just saying something very specific with all the words required to completely (ambiguity < 0.00001836) express the idea.
As I said, this has more to do with me than either of you, and, as I said, I skim your posts less than others*. I wish I had more time to read what you write and express my own thoughts with even a modest fraction of the same clarity. But alas, I'm usually reading at a red light, a gas pump, or on the commode. Many of your posts I can't even finish reading over a burger, much less issue the kind of reply they deserve.

EDIT: "I skim your posts less than others" meaning, I actually read them, more often.

I recognize that posts like these are dense and voluminous, so I don’t expect many people to read all the way through, or at all for that matter. I am glad you appreciate the goal of eradicating ambiguity but let me take some blame for difficulty in reading some of my long posts.

To quote Pascal:

I have made this longer than usual because I have not had time to make it shorter.

This is how I find things with these long posts. To reduce the length without making the ideas more nebulous is certainly possible. While I am not relying on the mere weight of words to make my case, I am taking the shortcut of writing excessively long screeds. Excessive, to the extent I could shorten them given the time.

You‘ve provoked me to take a swipe at shortening my first reply. Looking it over, I already shorten and clarified a few senfences but for the entire text I will have to take at least as long as it took to write it. Almost all my off-topic essays are first drafts.

Also, in thinking about it, I don‘t think it is enough to not care if they are read by everyone, or anyone in particular. I think I should try to make them as accessible as practicality allows out of respect for people here. So, I am going to try to avoid intricate sentences and potentially unfamiliar language when writing here.

My attitude to this point has been that I am writing for myself, in effect. This is partially literally true since writing helps clarify ideas, but the intended meaning is that I was writing for people sufficiently like me in outlook and mental habits that the writing would flow for them. I see this now as a mistake.

So thank you for pointing it out. I am going to work on it and maybe more people will read and enjoy my writing—even possibly learn something from it.

 

@Ya’akov

@LowQCab I want to make one more reply to you, to apologize if I have missed something in what you have written that is actually responsive to my points. It is certainly possible; and to be frank with you as you were with me.

It is certainly true that I have, what you could call "pre-conceived notions", and to the extent these obscure your content it is my fault. But, I read over your posts again and the trouble for me is that you have a pattern of doing three things repeatedly:

Asserting something with vague references to evidence "that would not be believed" and so you don't present it. Or you refer to a long period of time, or a large volume—which is a form of appeal to authority which you rail against often.

When something is presented, with a rationale for its validity, instead of replying to the rationale you deflect the challenge by saying "you only think that because you don't know the truth".

Through a veil of deference and humility you condescend that you are much more informed than the everyone present and it is just a waste of time trying to disabuse us of the misconceptions we entertain due to the nearly universal malady of being unable to question authority.

These are the things that set the tone of your posts for me. It makes taking you seriously difficult because you appear quite unaware of what this looks like to others. Even if your controversial assertions about hidden physics and conspiracies provide some novel ideas I hadn't considered (and so far you've said nothing new to me) I would surely miss them because of these other things.

I want to make clear here that I do not believe for a minute that I don't have traits and behaviors that people find abrasive. I know that I am no example of a great person or interpersonal perfection. So I am not contrasting you with myself.

I have no ill will towards you, but I do find your posts frequently rankle because of what I have enumerated. I have not made from any characterization of your personality or style because those things are not relevant.

It is almost certainly my fault if I am upset by the content of your posts (conspiracies and "spiritual secrets" are sore spots for me) so I really should just refrain from answering.

You are often very helpful in the on-topic forums and I do believe that on balance AAC is better for you're being here, and for that I thank you.

[EDIT: Typo fix, replaced mistakenly deleted line, and replaced words without changing the semantic content.]

 

Wow!!! when did this tread turn into two people trying to out do themselves? Two people that for no other description I can come up with(because I'm an uneducated moron) are so full of themselves they can't be bothered not to convince each other who is the one that only knows how the world works and what it take to live in it!

One believes he knows more about the law and the words used in it and the other only brags about how expensive his toys are!

 

Wow!!! when did this tread turn into two people trying to out do themselves? Two people that for no other description I can come up with(because I'm an uneducated moron) are so full of themselves they can't be bothered not to convince each other who is the one that only knows how the world works and what it take to live in it!

One believes he knows more about the law and the words used in it and the other only brags about how expensive his toys are!

Yes, I am biased, but I disagree with your characterization of the two posters I will not name as equivalent.

One is expressing essentially the views of a very large group of people known as secular humanists. The other claims secret knowledge that he dare not even disclose the sources of for fear of being ridiculed. These are not equivalent.

I don’t understand the reference to expensive toys though. Perhaps we are not talking about the same two people

 

I don’t understand the reference to expensive toys though. Perhaps we are not talking about the same two people

And talking about one being a Secular Humanist, is not one I include in my post. I have no problem at all with him, trying to make sense of the other two. In fact I mostly agree with his point of view.
If you don't understand about the expensive toys you haven't read many of his boasts, oops, I meant posts.

 

I read plenty of facile statements in this thread. I also read statements that were predicated on seemingly unsettled arguments from previous discussion. Worst of all, statements completely unrelated to the original post! In hopes of renewed discussion, I wish to make another of my own that is relevant to the original post:

To me, the scientific method is the only way to describe existence in a way comprehensible to the beings inside that existence (us). For this to have validity towards each facet of life, a complete comparison of all things becomes necessary, a Venn diagram of sorts. Enabled by technology, humanity is slowing increasing our ability to objectivity increase our knowledge base to this end: Any model of our minds (imagination) can be expressed algebraically. Each model whether logical in approach or not (as well as either based in reality or not), can be entered into this database that started from nothing and will approach infinity with its content. After enough entries, reasonable conclusions can be made. These conclusions are then fed into the database as another model and the cycle continues.

If humanity can keep this database going in a way that preserves the integrity of each person or machine that provided that model, eventually humanity will be forced into agreement on all issues when computational brick walls are met. There will be those that blatantly disagree, but those people do not deal in facts. There will be those that think the current models are wrong: These people must be allowed to input their model into the database otherwise the whole process undermines itself. All models must be open to scrutiny if the goal is to submit the results to the database in order to refine the database.

The million-dollar question then becomes: What will humanity do with this knowledge? If YOU had this knowledge, what would you do with it? With the knowledge you possess, what have you done with it?

 

How Machine IoT digital twin system uses term " living " it is also controversial at post graduate level.
The practical sustainable application to EE: What are digital twins and why digital twin projects are expected to employ electrical engineers.
I am showing an important discussion that uses LIFE in a context that is relevant to circuits.

Video, the introduction style used is typical contemporary(motivational) lecture for modern electronics. The discussion appropriately
uses term LIFE relevant to this discussion meaning the 5G subscription is paid and the machine's current life cycle is performing a useful task.
The companies that do have biologist, the EE department will allow a research biologist to come in but please wash their hands first.
In a university a discussion might include philosophy and beliefs, but the biologist still needs to wash the microbes off his hands.

Most industries that relate to circuits are hardware oriented and very few have biotechnical interest outside sensors. The computer operation, programming together with specialized robots can use an "internet of things: connection". The digital twin concept is important. The industries are mainly remodels that previously used laborers. The industry then relies on engineers and is less dependent on cheap labor. With context moderation the term life shown in this video is relevant to circuits. When we talk about what is life in circuits it is limited to practical circuits and applications not every effect of electricity. If you raised your hand in this discussion below, a question about a statement in a biology book would need redirection without a specific application. The same is true in electrical engineering and forums.

 

To me, the scientific method is the only way to describe existence...

I consider the renaissance to be the most amazing advance in cultural thinking. An outcome of that was the refinement of the scientific method as a discipline of shared enquiry.

The most important aspect is the shared reproducibility of evidence, which is where superstitious thought fails.

 

I fully realize that at least ~15% of the World's population has a dangerously low I.Q.,
. . .
But things are starting to change very fast now, so get ready.

Your optimism is a credit to you.

 

I fully realize that at least ~15% of the World's population has a dangerously low I.Q.,

About 16% of the population has been one standard deviation or more below the average for as long as I can remember. If the current number is down to 15%, things are improving.

 

I consider the renaissance to be the most amazing advance in cultural thinking. An outcome of that was the refinement of the scientific method as a discipline of shared enquiry.

The most important aspect is the shared reproducibility of evidence, which is where superstitious thought fails.

It is hard to imagine a time before 'common knowledge'. The old world must have been a very scary place to early humans. It is no wonder why ghosts and like came to be. I consider myself VERY lucky be located in Canada is 2022. Most of us have a comfortable life available to us and it is a direct result of the scientific contributions of our forefathers. One combined contribution that blows my mind weekly are roadways. The amount of manpower, materials and engineering that has gone into each meter of road is considerable and there are EVERYWHERE. All this made possible by the persistence of those devout to their craft and 'against all odds'.

 

Time out. This forum is for General Science, Physics, and Math, not personalities of discussion participants.