|
Hi Luis,
Thank you for your response.
***First of all, Stafford's paper is a mathematical trick***
Well, yes, I agree that you could see it that way.
***...based within a faulty understanding of space-time. I mean, he doesn't even understand that t=0 for the "beginning" of any and all phenomena! I even understand this!***
I'm sure that by "t" you are referring to a variable of time, and that by "beginning" you mean the initial value of t, and that by "any and all phenomena" you are referring to your concept of our physical universe which seems to you to be evolving along the temporal dimension marked by t, and I am sure you feel that you understand this. But, there are a host of assumptions implicit in that description, each of which is questionable. If questioning and doubting those assumptions implies a "faulty understanding of space-time" then I, too, have such a faulty understanding. I think you have deluded yourself into thinking you understand something profound, when in fact you have latched on to an over-simplified story that you believe in.
***Now, to call his paper solipsist, as I have, is actually a form of flattery.***
It's hard for me to see how. But regardless, you haven't explained how you can interpret his work as such.
***The paper is just a complicated trick, really. Remember a couple years ago that "formula" whereby you could think of a number, bump it against the current year, and arrive back at you birthday and the number you'd originally thought of? It seems to me Stafford's paper is the same sort of mathematical 'sleight of hand,' only a lot more involved.***
Yes, that's very close to being correct. In mathematics, such a "trick" is called a tautology. That is exactly what Dick says he has discovered. That's exactly what every mathematical theorem is.
***The results are consistent because his "theorems" are designed much like the little trick I presented in "Stick Dafford, DhP."***
Not at all. What you claim to be your trick is nothing more than an out-and-out error.
To make the step from
?-1 x ?-1 = ?1 x ?1
to
-1 = 1
you would have us accept that
?-1 x ?-1 = -1
I'm not sure what you meant to symbolize by the question marks, but unless they stand for the number i, the equation is false. If the question mark does stand for the number i, then ?1 x ?1 would also turn out to be -1.
What you have written is either an error or simply nonsense. I think you would be better off avoiding math altogether, Luis.
***However, solipsism is technically the strict separation of "self" from any- and everything that the "self" may consider.***
I think that is a pretty goofy definition of 'solipsism'.
***Stafford sets this division up early on, though his terms are reversed (calling the universe "physical reality"). You might say it's a "reverse" solipsism.***
I don't see the reversal you mention. Do you mean he calls the universe "physical reality" instead of calling the self "physical reality"? Or that he calls the universe "physical reality" as opposed to calling the universe the self? I don't get it, Luis. I think you are just babbling. And in spite of any reversal of terms, I don't see any connection between this and solipsism.
You have confirmed my opinion that you have no idea what Dick Stafford has done, and you attempt to put him and his work down by overblown specious rhetoric.
But, thanks for responding anyway.
Warm regards,
Paul |
