Qfwfq Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 As far as I can see we are gradually getting nowhere.Alas, I fear so too. I can only guess that your real purpose in this endeavorer is to set things up for some gross misinterpretation of what I am talking about so you can create some contrived straw man to tear to pieces.No, I only try to make some sense of your posts and website. And, furthermore, I cannot comprehend your position. Is it your position that there are no constraints on a valid explanation?No, my position is just that nobody seems able to understand what you're on about. If you don't see a need for "symmetry arguments" you clearly have no comprehension of what I am doing (which actually seems to be very much a fact).:)Goodness Gracious!!! I simply asked about what you purport to be adding to current ideas on the topic. I still fail to see what you claim to add to any other topic. I think comunication fails because of language difference. Also, you blatantly deny having said things when I remark on them or ask for clarification, not only in cases where I have criticized what you have said. I quite agree with Erasmus about supplying simple examples, this might help to illustrate your model. There's no point at all in replying as if that would mean restricing the universality of it. You keep adopting a strategy of as-if replies that gets us nowhere and only exhausts our patience. I'm still at a loss to understand the meaning of the set D but I think it's just because I lack the patience and can't afford much time to go through your prolix ramblings and try to decipher your obscure meanings and definitions, only to find no added value. You claim to base QM on fundamental things, without the need for the usual axioms, but I still haven't been able to follow that far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.