May I quote:
"You don't need to mention a person's IQ. First you have to find out if your audience is impressed. I'm not. "
I said what I said: you asked who Chris Langan was; he is readily identified by his fame in IQ circles; when I first saw the item long ago on T.V. I tended to dismiss him as he seemed to be using a lot of big words and that didn't seem really intelligent to "solve the universe".
However; insofar as "intelligence" means "navigational skill in puzzle solving"; I have seen the error of my prejudice you might say by seeing for myself what he has written. He is very smart in my opinion based on that evidence.
But I have shown the situation surrounding "number". Remember it has been said that the day shall come when "the first shall be last and the last shall be first". Every baby is very good at navigating reality too by virtue of their transparancy to it.
"IQ" is a man-made construct and related to the context in which it occurs.
I do not need to find out if my audience is impressed; what has being impressed got to do with it? If I identified someone by their fame in being a street tramp; do I have to ask if anyone is impressed by that?
If you want to apply the category "being impressed" that is your choice. If you do not want to apply it; that is your choice. The idea is a free meeting of ideas without say prejudice either way surely?
Quote: "What's wrong with [oversimplication]? No law against simplicity.......what content is supposed to be missing?
Oversimplification is a logical fallacy which leads to faulty reasoning. "
Please: you have given no evidence that I have missed content: show me the proof of "oversimplification"!
"Can you prove there is such a thing as "abstract"?
Why do you even ask such a silly question? Can you tell me there's such a thing as 'prove'? This is one example of how you lose credibility to others. You play word games that only fool yourself. "
But you have avoided the question here? Please tell me why you can use the notion "abstract" without proof? At least this is surely reasonable: please define "abstract".
I can define "proof": proof in practice means showing there is no obvious contradiction; beyond that there is no need of proof? ....things just are.
Quote: "Are people trying to imprison reality?
How is providing useful definitions based on empirical results in any way 'imprisoning reality'?"
Empiricism is based on people comparing patterns with each other and each comparing the patterns within his/her own personal history?
When people replace self-reference with a Zeno's Arrow construct built of numbers; they might be like playing a stuck record; jailing things with numbers?
It is the interaction of person and reality that might be restricted by sticking numbers to things?
Quote: "You are not allowed to re-write physics to your fantasy. Maybe you think that is acceptable, but it is pure lunacy."
Harv; try please to put aside any prejudice about physics; and deal directly with for example my reply to Dr. Dick.
By the way; my "fantasy" involves arguments about solving physics with basic philosophy that have already been recognised as an apparently valid approach re: Dr. Dick's paper by an expert mathematician.
Look at the content!
If you call me "a nut" you are imprisoning me and you are imprisoning yourself: you are placing rules on interactions here. But the future is free...........every moment I could be a nut you might say in your view; but I might not be?
Your other comments were challenging and I am short of time to reply now.