Hi Alan and Anyone,
I'm bringing this up from below. Because of what he has been writing lately, Alan's answers to these challenges and questions are relevant, and not answering them would throw its own light on his thesis.
Alan wrote:Is heavy use of mathematics a sign of "seriously"?
Yes, and still it's no insurance against questions being raised about how the math applies. Only a dedication to integrity can guard one against fudging one's math to support one's most cherished pre-conceptions.
In a way you are right; they have no content, because they show FREEDOM; my posts might help release you from the math-laws of physics, release you from mathematical death...
Alan seems to say he is devising tools,
for which there is no such limitation. With tools, the tests are not mathematical but empirical and ethical.
"an expert mathematician has looked at Dr. Stafford's work and has agreed that my non-mathematical "category intersections" approach informed by John Hospers explanation of how words are defined by a broadening and narrowing process IS A VALID WAY OF MAPPING DR. DICK'S SYSTEM."
That does not surprise me.
Alan wrote: Ironically my map IS ABOUT THE VOLUNTARY NATURE OF THE ALLEGED LAWS OF PHYSICS, THAT "CONTENT" IS VOLUNTARY: AS YOU MEASURE SO YOU ARE MEASURED.
"As" and "so" do not correspond to any precise functions that I know. Can you help me understand how that statement is not just a weasel-phrase (Pardon the expression)?
The danger is that imprecise laws and equations can to be a tool of tyrants, petty and otherwise,
for fun and profit but at the expense of the one being judged. It even happens on this forum.
In doubt and good faith,